On 25 August 2016 at 12:49, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 August 2016 at 23:59, Dave Johansen
<davejohansen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that how to handle SCLs can get really mess really fast, but a lot
> of projects are jumping on the "modern C++" bandwagon and allows
devtoolset
> is low risk, easy to do and enables a lot of packages to be built with EPEL
> that otherwise wouldn't be.
>
> Basically, I think that figuring out how to handle SCLs is a long term issue
> that will take some serious work, but coming up with some simple policies
> that allow it to be used in EPEL is something that should be well within the
> realm of the possible.
History and experience has taught us that every time we do that it
comes back and bites us big time. Mainly because the simple policies
start getting revised and rewritten or violated as soon as the second
package gets put in... and in fixing that you break the first one..
and the people who used it. This is ok in Fedora but in EPEL you end
up spending a lot of time fixing people who aren't expecting breakage.
I hit send too soon as what is the exact policy proposal you are wanting.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.