On 20 March 2014 12:02, Remi Collet <Fedora@famillecollet.com> wrote:

Hi,

RHSCL 1.0 is GA since September.

RHSCL 1.1 Beta is released today:
http://developerblog.redhat.com/2014/03/20/rhscl-1-1-beta-available-apache-mongodb/

As EPEL is the common repository to find additional packages for RHEL, I
really think it should also be possible to provide additional packages
for RHSCL.

I have been thinking about this and wondering if SCL's might be better under Robyn's "EPIC" (Extra Packages for Infrastructure and Clouds) which would be something that could have less rigid rules for keeping going for 12 years that would be more in line with SCL's 2-3 year lifetimes. I was going to bring it up as a FLOCK talk to get the ball running with possible interaction with the CentOS group (maybe joining with their SCL operations). Does that make sense?

For now the Fedora Guidelines are still under discussion.

Most of the discussion is about the tree layout (/var, /etc/, ...).
This Guidelines will probably need more work/time before approval :(

Of course, if some "new" SCL (new, as not in upstream product) will come
to EPEL, it will have to follow the same Guidelines.

But, for additional packages for existing collections (I mean extending
RHSCL), thinks can be simpler. We only have to use the tree as defined
in the RHSCL collection (in the meta-package).

I really hope we can find some solution.

Of course, we need to ensure, with rel-eng, that we are able to build
those packages.

So, time to raise the discussion.

Remi.

P.S. you will notice that whatever we decide, things will happen (and
have already start), we just need to know if we want to see this in EPEL
or outside.
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel

Stephen J Smoogen.