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

Re: Meeting summary/notes from today's EPEL meeting 2010-02-12

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:08PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:

> Log:    	http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-12/fedora-meeting.2010-02-12-20.59.log.html

From the log:
21:19:15 <stickster> so that engineers inside Red Hat understand they
need to be working with EPEL as an upstream
21:19:27 <derks> that's great
21:19:52 <stickster> The unanimous response I got from the folks I
talked to was, "Yup, we're doing that now, and will keep doing so"

This seems not to have worked for "python-setuptools", because when it
was added to RHEL, an older version that the on in EPEL was used. Also
the RHEL package does not provide "python-setuptools-devel". A related
ignored bug report is:

For this package, it EPEL land it does not look better, as the CVS does
not contain a dead.package:

Also there seems to be no trace about the whole situation. Also it seems
that more or less any documentation regarding EPEL is not maintained,
e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL contains a log of stale

Latest report on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Reports is from
2008, week 17

Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in sync
with what CVS admins require, as they might require a confirmation that
a maintainer has been asked:
But this is not what the procedure describes.


[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL

Attachment: pgpSSN9FWvQIN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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