Re: EPEL EPIC! [was Re: and SCL]
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:25:50 +0400
Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2014-03-21 16:07 GMT+04:00 Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>> It doesn't exist, it's an idea that Robyn has floated
>> semi-seriously as a way to provide a repo that moves faster than
>> EPEL. Rather than try to jam fast-moving stuff in to EPEL, the
>> idea was to do an Extra Packages for Infrastructure and Cloud
>> (EPIC) that had a different, faster-moving charter. EPIC would
>> target the *EL platform just as EPEL does.
Faster moving rate is great indeed. But adding more than on version of
software (no matter of how many repos it takes) means only one - we
have to impose additional support requiremetns on a packagers.
The "social contract" requiremens for EPEL "support" (which of souce
isn't a "real" support) is way too high for the average maintainer.
That's the reason I believe the entire EPEL idea was a huge mistake
and waste of time - unfortunately I failed to discuss this with other
fellow fedora members during FOSDEM Fedora.NEXT related talks.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I happen to disagree. I think EPEL has
been a very big success and very helpfull for many people.
It can't be everything for everyone... the expectation for it is slow
and stable. If you need faster and more updatable, that should be
something else (or at least another repo) with different (clear)
expectations.
No matter of the current situation I'd love to discuss possible
ways
to improve it. So count me in as well.
Yeah, I think we can definitely always improve.
kevin
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 836 bytes)