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

Re: "newer packages"

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Stephen John Smoogen<smooge gmail com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Kevin Fenzi<kevin scrye com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:28:35 -0500 (CDT)
>> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath redhat com> wrote:
>>> Should we have a stronger effort to replace older RHEL packages if we
>>> put them in their own namespace and don't conflict?
>> Well, how much interest is there in this?
>> How many packages would we have?

One thing we often do at users/developers request is role say
python2.5 to install along side the system python2.3.4 on say EL4 where
we aim for it to  do no harm. Users have to explicitly call it.
I'd be very happy to see and submit things like that.

>> Can the interesting ones that people want really be made to not
>> conflict with the base RHEL versions?
>> This would be a totally seperate 'epel-bleeding' or
>> 'epel-newer-versions' repo?
> epel-sid (if it compiles, ship it!)
> The issues are how to deal with this cleanly (if that is possible). I
> know that there are people who need newer versions of postgres, mysql
> etc just to get apps working.. but they also run into the "we need a
> newer python" which uhm would be very interesting to try and deal
> with.
>>> This is sort of a nuanced problem since RHEL5 doesn't feel nearly as
> --
> Stephen J Smoogen.
> Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
> -- Robert Browning
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

Steve Traylen

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