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

Re: Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:25:10PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
> > Andy Gospodarek schrieb:
> > >Well put, Paul.  Packages that mostly run standalone are appropriate
> > >candidates for a rebase (like freehoo and firefox), but those that serve
> > >as libraries or building blocks for other components should try to stay
> > >as stable as possible from an ABI/API perspective.
> > 
> > I would like to add the distinction between "server" and "desktop" software.
> > While both categories are not always disjoint, it this the distinction is 
> > useful
> > nevertheless: Some things like Firefox, OpenOffice etc. can be updated more
> > often than something like Exim, Apache, ...
> > 
> That is an excellent point.  Should we consider breaking EPEL into an
> EPEL-Base and EPEL-Desktop?  If we had separate repos it might be
> helpful.
> I would be in favor of that and then possibly change the way we queue
> something to move from testing to stable so that it can remain in
> testing longer.

Would the same package exist potentially in either repository?  I'm
just trying to think how this might effect CentOS users who don't have
the concept of Desktop/Server...

I kind of like the -unstable option myself... 


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