[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: EPEL acceptance policy

On 3/12/07, Tim Burke <tburke redhat com> wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Well the one problem I can see that is a bootstrap problem.. if RHEL
> picks up some subset of EPEL packages for its own subchannel. However,
> that is really nitpicking something to death.
Good point.  In this case I think the package would naturally stop
evolving in EPEL, as the incentive for inclusion would be removed.
However, that transition (exit?) would be purely voluntary on the part
of the EPEL pkg maintainer ... as RH isn't going to "force" it.

Similarly, what to do if a package is included in RHEL5 but not in
RHEL4. I would think its fair game for EPEL to build the RHEL4 version
but not the RHEL5 version.

Working on qa'ing the Centos-4.92 build.. I ran into a similar issue.
Upgrading from 3.8 or 4.4 leaves around 148 'orphans' on a system. I
am expecting that some of those might be candidates for EPEL-5.x as
people like squirrelmail etc.

Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]