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

Re: EPEL report week 37 2007

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:00:26 +0200
fedora leemhuis info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:

... snip...

>  * repo layout
>   * the plan written at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-a98bce5283ee336393aec81cf6fc90543c0f2277
>  was to have directories for each release (e.g. have 5.0 as main repo
> now and a symlink from 5 pointing to it; when 5.1 ships run "cp -al
> 5.0 5.1" and adjust the "5" link to point to 5.1 instead; some weeks
> or months later remove the 5.0 dir to save the space; 5.0 btw would
> not be maintained anymore, we just leave it around for some
> weeks/months). This would allow people still on EL5.0 (for example
> those using derivates that do not ship 5.1 some weeks after RH does)
> to use EPEL5.0 without running into dependency issues that might
> arise when a package from EPEL5.1 depends on something from EL5.1;
>   *  seems lots of people forgot about that plan never realized it
> full effects; do we still want that stuff? or in a modified way maybe?

yeah, I didn't realize that was the full plan. Not sure why I didn't
see that before. 

My concern with this is that the older repo will not be getting
security updates, and that people will be depending on it not realizing
it will go away. Not sure giving them a few weeks would assist any.
People who don't want to update probibly won't update in a few weeks if
there is no reason for them to do so. 

I propose the following instead. 

When 5.1 is released:

- mv 5.0 to 5.1
- link 5 and 5.0 to 5.1

This does mean that if there is something in 5.1 thats a new
dependency, 5.0 users will need to upgrade or not use that package.
However, it means that security/big bugfixes will keep going in that
repo, and that if there are no new dependencies, folks running 5.0 can
keep using the repo. 

I don't think we have the manpower to maintain repos for each minor
release. Also, aren't minor releases supposed to be ABI compatible?

>  * RHEL 5.1
>    * will likely be out soon; we don't know exactly when; thus the
> estimated EPEL testing -> stable move that is pushed in parallel will
> likely be a week (or two?) after EL 5.1 is out

Do we want to try and push new stable packages out to the repo before
5.1 at some point here? I know we talked about doing monthly pushes of
stable new packages from testing->stable. 

Also, I would really like to see the testing repo free of dependency
issues before 5.1 is out. That would allow us to push everything in
there into stable without problem. 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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