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

Re: 'policy' for multiple versions of same software in EPEL

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin scrye com> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:25:10 -0500
> Greg Swift <gregswift gmail com> wrote:
>> If an additional repo is decided to be the way to go, what would it
>> take to develop a mostly 'complete' list along with a list of existing
>> howtos or subject matter experts that can be referenced by the poor
>> soul(s) who volunteer to do the work?
> Hard to say until we had such a list. ;)

Fun ;)

So that was partially intended as "who not already responding do i
need to poke and prod to try and find this out?"

And if you are one of those wonderful people, consider yourself poked
and prodded :)

>> > And I'm sure there's other issues... it would not be at all easy,
>> > and I would prefer to avoid it.
>> understandably.  although at this point I'm wondering a few things:
>> 1: since multiple bits have brought this up and no one has come up
>> with a better solution, is this the way we need to go?
> I'm still not sure. ;)
>> 2: would a single EPEL-supplemental/rolling/fubar meet the needs of
>> both of these paths?
> I don't know. I'd love to hear from those that have cases not handled
> by current EPEL.

me too

>> 3: is it possible to do the numbered packages in the same git
>> repositories without creating a whole separate package path? is it
>> reasonable?
> I don't know. I guess it would need to be 'epel6-rolling' and
> 'epel5-rolling' as seperate branches in git.

so ...
*insert tongue in cheek*
i've now decided we should use REPEL as the name.  maybe that would
resolve the 'i used it and through it was stable' issue
*remove tongue from cheek*

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