[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 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:19:20 +0100
Till Maas <opensource till name> wrote:

> 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:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460631
> For this package, it EPEL land it does not look better, as the CVS
> does not contain a dead.package:
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python-setuptools/EL-5/

Perhaps we can get stickster to communicate that back to RHEL folks.
Or give us some more direct way of doing so. I will ask him to comment
on this thread. 

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

I can clean that up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. 
We no longer do regular reports. 

> 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:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15
> But this is not what the procedure describes.
> [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL

I can add clarification there. Basically he was just asking: "have you
talked to the Fedora maintainer about maintaining this in EPEL". 

The answer could just have been "yes, I have". 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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