On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:19:20 +0100
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:08PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:
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:
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
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" procedure is
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.
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".