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

Re: Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)



Hi Ray,

first of all, I do appreciate your concerns: My free time is very limited
too and I'm doing most of my (very few!) package activities in my free time.
But I think the raison d'ĂȘtre for EPEL is well packaged software which is
nearly as good as RHEL packages (as good you can be with only volunteers).

Ray Van Dolson schrieb:
Is there a place for a -unstable branch for those of us who want to
have updated / newer packages?

IMHO an unstable branch would be a quite good idea.

Just to share some other idea of mine which is only loosely related to the
unstable EPEL thing:
I have a slightly different problem when it comes to updated versions: E.g.
I'm doing much TurboGears-related development so I like having the latest
TurboGears and related components but the rest should be as stable as possible.

Other example: I'm compiling EL4/5 RPM packages for Bacula which are published on
Bacula's SF page. Of course there are some admins out there who really want the new
Bacula version - even on RHEL. Bacula in EPEL 5 is at 2.0 (and not even present in
EPEL 4 - ixs: *hint* ;-). I thought about updating the high-quality EPEL RPMs for
newer versions and to provide updated RPMs on a Fedora-associated (user) page.

So after all I think there is no 'one fits it all' solution but more something
like an 'updated stack' which are just additional repositories.


fs


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