Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)
Michael A. Peters
mpeters at mac.com
Wed Jul 2 13:40:16 UTC 2008
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> There are a few exceptions. I do think RHEL is justified in moving
>> Firefox to FF3. The reason is twofold -
>>
>> 1) Firefox has a huge codebase. It would take extreme amount of man
>> power to continue to maintain FF 1.x without upstream.
>>
>> 2) The web evolves quickly, and a browser must keep in touch with
>> modern web innovations, particularly in the area of javascript and CSS
>> implementation.
>>
>
> A small addition here; RHEL does so by releasing a minor update to the
> entire operating system (5.2) - so everyone knows to look for changes
> like these. Is this something EPEL can do as well?
>
> EPEL 5.1/nethack-3.4.3
>
> EPEL 5.2/nethack-4.0 (for the right reasons)
>
> Just a thought.
To be honest, I think it would be too much effort to keep separate
branches of EPEL for each point release just for the few cases where
there is a legitimate reason to update a package.
If a user doesn't want to upgrade to a point release, the user can add
nethack to their excludes for automatic updates.
More information about the epel-devel
mailing list