00:00:12 < knurd> | Meeting ping dgilmore, Jeff_S, knurd, mmcgrath, nirik, stahnma, quaid and everyone interested in EPEL -- EPEL meeting in #fedora-meeting now! 00:00:12 < knurd> | Hi everybody; who's around? 00:00:12 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Sig meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process 00:00:13 * | knurd likes to remind people that the schedule and the topic list for todays meeting can be found on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule 00:00:28 * | Jeff_S here 00:00:30 * | mmcgrath here 00:00:43 * | nirik is here. 00:01:14 --> | daMaestro (Jon) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:01:31 < knurd> | lala 00:01:42 * | daMaestro sings along 00:01:48 < daMaestro> | epel++ 00:01:50 < daMaestro> | ;-) 00:02:01 < knurd> | well, let's start slowly 00:02:04 < knurd> | daMaestro, :-) 00:02:06 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – broken deps – Jeff_S 00:02:12 --> | mra (matt anderson) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:02:19 < knurd> | Jeff_S, any progress? 00:02:25 < knurd> | did you poke people? 00:02:43 < Jeff_S> | no, I thought mmcgrath did enough of that for me :) 00:02:53 < mmcgrath> | :: sigh :: 00:02:55 < Jeff_S> | actually, I know a couple packages got fixed 00:02:56 < knurd> | hehe :) 00:02:57 < daMaestro> | i got poked 00:03:05 < daMaestro> | but i have no idea how to fix it.. 00:03:09 < knurd> | daMaestro, eeryone got accidentally 00:03:12 < Jeff_S> | but I ran it again today and there is still a big list 00:03:21 < daMaestro> | ahh, ok; good 00:03:37 < knurd> | mmcgrath, is the script working now? 00:03:41 < Jeff_S> | spot says he is planning to import a bunch of his packages soon 00:03:50 < Jeff_S> | so that should help 00:03:54 < mmcgrath> | knurd: Here's the problem with the script... it requires koji. 00:04:02 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – broken deps/spam-o-magic – Jeff_S/mmcgrath 00:04:05 * | spot is working on it 00:04:07 < knurd> | mmcgrath, what? 00:04:13 < mmcgrath> | So I'm working to rewrite that part of it to read from owners.list. 00:04:19 < knurd> | how does that script run for FE-6? 00:04:19 < Jeff_S> | but there are some packages which seem to be looking at stuff that is not available in EL4 00:04:19 < spot> | i've just been sidetracked by the need to get rocksndiamonds fixed 00:04:35 * | mmcgrath has no idea. 00:04:42 < knurd> | mmcgrath, ask mschwendt? 00:04:44 < mmcgrath> | spot: Are you working on the script? 00:04:46 < knurd> | mmcgrath, he might know 00:04:56 < knurd> | mmcgrath, and remmeber, owners.epel.list ;-) 00:04:56 < nirik> | I think it has a local copy of owners.list it uses? 00:05:02 < Jeff_S> | http://www.sheltren.com/epel/repoclosure/2007-07-11/epel4-i386-repoclosure.t... <--- see for example postgresql-pgpoolAdmin which requires a higher version of PHP than is in EL4 00:05:02 < mmcgrath> | :) 00:05:41 < quaid> | oi! 00:05:42 < knurd> | well, the plan is to annouce in 8 days iirc 00:05:45 < quaid> | sorry I'm late 00:05:47 < mmcgrath> | spot: ping? 00:05:55 < knurd> | do we get everything fixed until then? 00:05:59 < knurd> | I doubt that a bit 00:06:15 < nirik> | I think we should try and if we need to slip the announcement we can do that... 00:06:23 < Jeff_S> | I doubt it too. The spam script would help, IMO. 00:06:25 < knurd> | mmcgrath, spot afaik only wanted to build his packages, which should solve some of the deps 00:06:35 < mmcgrath> | knurd: ahh. thanks. 00:06:48 < nirik> | mmcgrath: did the spam-o-matic make a valid run after the invalid one? Or it hasn't made a valid run yet? 00:06:52 < knurd> | mmcgrath, send mschwendt a mail about the script 00:06:58 < knurd> | he really should know the answer 00:07:05 < knurd> | mmcgrath, or shall I do? 00:07:13 < mmcgrath> | I'll ping him 00:07:18 < knurd> | mmcgrath, thx 00:07:34 < knurd> | while we were on the shedule already 00:07:36 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – EPEL annoucement – quiad 00:07:45 < knurd> | so, broken deps not resolved yet 00:07:50 < knurd> | shall we move it one week? 00:07:58 < knurd> | annoucements isn't prepares either afaik 00:08:00 < knurd> | quaid, ? 00:08:21 < quaid> | eh, I put it off because it's not hard to write 00:08:36 < knurd> | hehe 00:08:36 < quaid> | it's not a blocking factor, fwiw 00:08:40 < Jeff_S> | mmcgrath: also if you need help w/ changing the script for epel, I can help 00:09:05 < mmcgrath> | Jeff_S: thanks. 00:09:23 < knurd> | so, move annoucement back by one week as broken deps likely won't get fixed in the next 8 days? 00:09:35 < quaid> | sounds wise 00:09:48 < quaid> | this is one of those "release early, but only when it's not broken" situations 00:09:54 < Jeff_S> | knurd: +1 -- we need to get this sorted out first 00:09:55 < knurd> | agreed 00:09:57 < nirik> | sure. 00:10:11 < knurd> | 20070726 would be the new target then 00:10:39 < Jeff_S> | and maybe we need a big warning on the wiki about pushing stuff to EPEL before deps are there? 00:10:52 * | dgilmore is here 00:10:55 < Jeff_S> | people seem to be assuming that the deps are there just because they are in fedora (extras) 00:10:55 < knurd> | Jeff_S, maybe add something to the faq 00:11:23 < knurd> | that might be the best afaics 00:11:38 < knurd> | hi dgilmore 00:11:46 < nirik> | wish we could block anything with broken deps from pushing. ;( 00:11:58 < knurd> | so, nobody yelled, so 20070726 is the new target then 00:12:09 < knurd> | nirik, bodhi in hte long term :-) 00:12:12 * | knurd moves on 00:12:19 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – push new packages to testing after EPEL annoucement – dgilmore 00:12:24 < knurd> | dgilmore, I added that 00:12:26 < nirik> | true, although bodhi doesn't currently do repoclosure either. ;) 00:12:32 < knurd> | just wanted to make sure we still are in agreement 00:12:43 < knurd> | all new packages after annoucement go to the testing/ dir? 00:12:59 < knurd> | and we hand move stuff over if peole ask for it? 00:13:26 < knurd> | any maybe do a full testing/X > X move some months later (with RHEL 5.1 maybe) 00:13:36 < knurd> | do we agree on that? 00:13:46 * | nirik thinks that sounds good. 00:13:52 < Jeff_S> | +1 00:14:16 < knurd> | dgilmore, is that possible from the infrastrucutre/pushers point? 00:14:23 < dgilmore> | knurd: i said last week I wont spend the time to manually move bits from testing to stable 00:14:33 < dgilmore> | its manual and labour intensive 00:14:44 < knurd> | dgilmore, so what do you suggest as solution 00:14:46 < dgilmore> | i can push everything to testing pretty easily 00:14:55 <-- | XulChris has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 00:14:58 < knurd> | sure, that's the plan 00:15:01 < nirik> | the only reason we would need anything manual is for security 00:15:06 < knurd> | but what about security fixes? 00:15:06 < dgilmore> | we have no easy way to move things to stable 00:15:24 < knurd> | well, we need a solution 00:15:27 < dgilmore> | how do we know whats security 00:15:39 < knurd> | someone tells us (via the wiki or a e-mail alias) 00:15:42 < dgilmore> | we can easily put things in one location 00:15:56 < dgilmore> | but to move things we have no way to do that 00:16:05 < nirik> | yeah, without a bodhi we need a manual process. ;( 00:16:19 < knurd> | dgilmore, we use the push scripts for another repo 00:16:30 < knurd> | there a simple move and createrepo works 00:16:39 < knurd> | sure, it's a ugly as hell 00:16:42 < nirik> | dgilmore: wouldn't it just be a matter of 'mv testing/foobar.rpm ../5/; createrepo '? 00:16:42 < knurd> | but possible 00:16:51 < nirik> | yeah... ;( 00:16:52 < knurd> | nirik, exactly that is what I mean 00:17:16 < dgilmore> | nirik: sure but you need to do that mv for each package for each arch and SRPMS 00:17:39 < knurd> | dgilmore, sure, but a simple script can do that 00:17:40 < nirik> | yeah. Not fun at all... but beats having no security updates. ;( 00:17:48 < knurd> | and it should not happen that often 00:17:52 < knurd> | nirik, +1 00:18:09 < dgilmore> | what about new packages? 00:18:18 < nirik> | we can ponder on it and see if we can think of a better way to do it? I can't off hand tho. 00:18:20 < dgilmore> | they go to testing? 00:18:21 < knurd> | we could do monthly "make testing become official repo" until EPEL is bigger 00:18:24 < knurd> | dgilmore, yes 00:18:27 < nirik> | new packages and any other udpates go to testing. 00:18:28 < dgilmore> | when do they go stable? 00:18:43 < nirik> | when rhel does a minor bump. 00:18:46 < knurd> | dgilmore, the old plan was to do that with each RHEL minor bump 00:18:54 < nirik> | 5.0 -> 5.1... then we move testing over 00:18:58 < knurd> | but for the start phase it might be better to do it more often 00:00:07 < dgilmore> | people will want new packages immediatly 00:00:21 < knurd> | every month or ever two months maybe? 00:00:43 < knurd> | dgilmore, and when we do what people want we have lots of broken deps 00:00:46 < nirik> | couldn't people who want a new package enable testing? 00:00:47 < knurd> | just look at EPEL now 00:00:52 < knurd> | nirik, +1 00:20:52 < knurd> | EPEL is for EL, not for Fedora -- thus we need to be a bit more carefull 00:20:56 < knurd> | espeially with broken deps 00:21:05 < knurd> | we don't want to scare people away 00:21:13 < knurd> | other opinions? 00:21:21 < dgilmore> | we need new push scripts then 00:21:36 < dgilmore> | we cant easily do what you want with what we have 00:21:56 < knurd> | dgilmore, I'm willing to do that 00:22:08 < knurd> | e.g. move the securty updates from testing to stable 00:22:18 < knurd> | just need access to the repo then 00:22:29 < dgilmore> | knurd: that is nota huge problem 00:22:30 < knurd> | I suppose nirik would be willing to help as well with it 00:22:39 < nirik> | sure. 00:22:42 < dgilmore> | what is is checking for broken deps before doing pushes 00:22:46 < knurd> | if we share the burden then it should work until we get bodhi for epel 00:23:10 < nirik> | dgilmore: now? nothing. :( repoclosure is really slow too unfortunately. 00:23:17 < knurd> | security updates should normally not introduce broken deps 00:23:42 < dgilmore> | nirik: exactly and each time you find something broken you have to start over 00:23:42 < nirik> | for security I would be willing to manually run repoclosure before any push... 00:23:47 < knurd> | that should be a rare prolem 00:23:57 < knurd> | nirik, +1 00:24:06 < knurd> | nirik, or just look at old package <-> new package 00:24:13 < knurd> | that's easier 00:24:14 < nirik> | I think wwoods was working on a way to get repoclosure or something like it going faster. Not sure where that is tho 00:24:20 <-- | lancelan has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:24:49 --> | lancelan (Lance Davis) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:25:00 < knurd> | so, deal? 00:25:06 < knurd> | all new packages go to testing 00:25:13 < knurd> | security updates hand-moved over 00:25:23 < knurd> | nirik and I will help with that 00:25:32 < knurd> | and we set up a wiki page or a alias up for that? 00:25:34 < nirik> | so, we need script for moving security updates and mass moving testing on minor release? The other current scripts would work ok for testing itself? 00:25:52 < knurd> | script for moving security updates > +1 00:26:06 < knurd> | mass moving testing > + 0.5 00:26:16 < Jeff_S> | well, the mass move is quite simple 00:26:19 < knurd> | that should not happen that often and likely can be done manually 00:26:24 < knurd> | Jeff_S, agreed 00:26:36 < knurd> | check that all deps are sane in stable + testing 00:26:40 < nirik> | well, one is a more general case of the other. ;) But yeah, not a big deal now. 00:26:44 < knurd> | move everything over from testing, done 00:26:47 < Jeff_S> | but yes, a script for moving security updates would be quite helpful I think 00:27:25 < knurd> | settled then? 00:27:55 * | knurd will take silence as agreement soon 00:27:55 < Jeff_S> | sure :) 00:28:03 < knurd> | so let's move on 00:28:12 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – new meeting time? – all (see also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/NewMeetingTime ) 00:28:18 * | knurd checks that page 00:28:25 < wwoods> | notting and skvidal and lmacken and I discussed a tool for doing quick single-package depchecking but there's no implementation yet 00:28:37 < wwoods> | no one has committed to implementing it 00:28:47 < knurd> | dgilmore, what would be your preferred time? 00:28:57 < Jeff_S> | wwoods: sounds interesting 00:29:22 < Jeff_S> | looks like everyone who edited the page likes the current time 00:29:33 < dgilmore> | knurd: i havent had time to even think about it 00:30:03 < knurd> | well, let's try to get this settled until next week 00:30:16 < dgilmore> | the times that work best for me are probably no good for knurd 00:30:40 < knurd> | dgilmore, sorry, timezone problem... 00:31:02 < knurd> | maybe I should just leave, that would make things easier :-) 00:31:17 < knurd> | dgilmore, ping me when you got some minutes, maybe we can work something out 00:31:23 * | knurd moves on for now 00:31:37 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – Communication plan for enterprise customers/ISVs/IHVs – stahnma, quaid 00:31:39 < knurd> | any news? 00:31:55 < knurd> | quaid, or just revisit after annoucement? 00:32:35 < knurd> | lala 00:32:48 * | knurd takes that as revisit next week 00:32:52 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – ExcludeArch TrackerBugs for EPEL – notting/knurd 00:32:55 < knurd> | opinions? 00:33:05 < knurd> | + 0.75 for EPEL-Excludearch trackers from me 00:33:21 < knurd> | can't hurt and is not htat much work 00:33:35 < nirik> | yeah, I think we can have epel versions... as long as the arch folks know to look at them. 00:33:44 < dgilmore> | -1 i think we should reuse what exists 00:33:56 < knurd> | dgilmore, that's to confusing 00:33:57 < quaid> | sorry, was writing :) 00:34:08 < Jeff_S> | dgilmore: but won't we have differences between EPEL/fedora? 00:34:12 < nirik> | I don't much care. I think we should track them tho. 00:34:12 < knurd> | dgilmore, as people that might want to fix Fedora stuff would run into EPEl stuf 00:34:31 <-- | tibbs has quit (Remote closed the connection) 00:34:33 --> | tibbs_ (Jason L Tibbitts III) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:34:56 < dgilmore> | having to keep track of things in two places will mean sometimes things get missed 00:35:01 --> | frozty_sa (frozt01100101) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:35:05 < knurd> | dgilmore, we can block the old Fedora bugs with the EPEL specific bug 00:35:09 < dgilmore> | we dont have different trackers for FC-6 and F-7 00:35:32 < dgilmore> | EL-4 and EL-5 are just different versions 00:35:51 < nirik> | what are the current blockers called? 00:36:12 < knurd> | FE-ExcludeArch-x86_64 iirc 00:36:37 < nirik> | were their different ones for fe and fc? 00:36:44 < knurd> | nirik, nope 00:36:53 < knurd> | not that I'm aware off 00:37:20 <-- | k0k has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:37:33 < knurd> | I'm fine going without them 00:37:39 < knurd> | as long as it's no general problem 00:38:00 < nirik> | we can always revisit... so for now we reuse the existing ones? 00:38:18 < knurd> | nirik, I'd say just ignore the issue for EPEL 00:38:34 < knurd> | devel counts, and that's fedora 00:38:42 --> | _blah_ (rob) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:38:57 < knurd> | I'll send something to the list 00:39:03 < knurd> | then we can decide next week 00:39:12 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – RHX and EPEL – quaid 00:39:26 < knurd> | quaid, can wait for some more weeks iirc? 00:39:29 < quaid> | nothing new to report yet 00:39:34 < quaid> | yep 00:39:41 < quaid> | it's going to take the time it takes 00:39:47 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting -- Free discussion around EPEL 00:39:49 < knurd> | quaid, thx 00:39:53 < knurd> | anything else? 00:40:15 * | knurd will close the meeting in 60 00:40:17 < knurd> | seems not 00:40:29 * | quaid no tengo mas 00:40:41 < dgilmore> | i noticed that dag made some derogatory comments about epel on the centos mailing list 00:40:51 < quaid> | oh, good 00:40:58 < quaid> | nothing quite like keeping the flames warm 00:41:01 < dgilmore> | saying that we dont want to work with him 00:41:12 < quaid> | in fact 00:42:01 --- | tibbs_ is now known as tibbs 00:42:01 < quaid> | I thin that's in our guidelines 00:42:02 < quaid> | it says somewheren "EPEL refuses to work with the followng people" 00:42:02 < quaid> | and then a list 00:42:02 < dgilmore> | quaid: :) 00:42:02 * | quaid hopes his sarcasm is evident in the irclog 00:42:03 < nirik> | ok. 00:42:03 <-- | Jeff_S has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:42:03 * | mmcgrath twiddles thumbs :) 00:42:05 < quaid> | it's hard because these guys all had good points 00:42:15 < quaid> | but they put way too much heat into it 00:42:29 < quaid> | and burned the bridge before it could be built 00:42:45 < quaid> | anyway, water under the ... oh, wait, nevermind 00:42:49 < knurd> | we maybe should some carefully choose words into the wiki 00:42:55 < knurd> | why we didn#t go for repotags 00:43:03 < dgilmore> | http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-July/083569.html 00:43:04 < quaid> | a good FAQ entry 00:43:08 < knurd> | and that we suggest that our contributors cooperate 00:43:26 --> | Jeff_S (Jeff Sheltren) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:43:27 < quaid> | we may be answering this for RHEL's support people when they have customers confused in the future :) 00:43:32 < dgilmore> | i didint know if we should have a statement on the wiki somewhere saying we are willing to accept anybody 00:44:15 < dgilmore> | knurd: repotags were not part of it 00:44:35 < knurd> | well, can't hurt to put some carefully choose words up 00:45:00 < knurd> | any yes, saying somewhere "we are open to annybody to join us" can't hurt either 00:45:24 < knurd> | I can work some sentences out and will send them out 00:45:24 < dgilmore> | i think skvidal would need to do some serious voodoo magic in yum to try and deal with multiple repos providing the same packages in a sane and consistent manner 00:45:29 < dgilmore> | not sure what his voodoo skills are like 00:45:49 < dgilmore> | that is all :) 00:45:53 --> | orc_emac (orc_emac) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:45:59 < knurd> | k, thx for you hints dgilmore 00:46:02 < knurd> | anything else? 00:46:02 < nirik> | priorities or something taging gpg keys to repo would be the only options I can think of. 00:46:39 < daMaestro> | ! 00:46:49 < dgilmore> | knurd: feel free to close up shop 00:47:00 * | knurd will close the meeting in 30 00:47:02 < daMaestro> | I have a question 00:47:11 < knurd> | nirik, a solution might arise over time (or not) 00:47:13 < orc_emac> | knurd: at the end of the day, epel is NOT open to anyone who wants to add patent restricted material; will not sign onto the CLA; or is unwilling to build with non-free binaries 00:47:25 < orc_emac> | that is all OK 00:47:26 < knurd> | orc_emac, okay, you have a point 00:47:35 * | knurd will close the meeting in 20 00:47:39 < orc_emac> | there cannot be total union of all independent packagerts 00:47:39 < mmcgrath> | daMaestro: yes? 00:47:46 < knurd> | knurd, I can add that to the wiki, can't hurt 00:47:50 < daMaestro> | revisor needs the pykickstart from f7; are we "allowed" to build revisor-pykickstart from the bits from f7? 00:47:57 * | knurd will close the meeting in 10 00:47:57 < daMaestro> | or do we have to branch? 00:48:06 < daMaestro> | basically, we'd like to see revisor in epel 00:48:16 < quaid> | fwiw, I'm going to work with the RH GSS (support team) to make sure their standard system checking script knows hunt for non-RHN-provided packages (such as EPEL); I'm sure they have a method, but that's one that would help the support team 00:48:21 < daMaestro> | but we have a blocker requirement of the pykickstart from f7 00:48:21 < nirik> | orc_emac: very true. Can't be everything for everyone. :) 00:48:26 < mmcgrath> | daMaestro: hit us up in #epel after the meeting :) 00:48:30 < daMaestro> | ok 00:48:30 < quaid> | there ya go :) 00:48:34 < knurd> | quaid, good to know :) 00:48:37 * | knurd will close the meeting in 10 00:48:47 < knurd> | -- MARK -- Meeting end 00:48:48 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/FedoraMeetingChannel -- Meetings often get logged -- see schedule in the wiki for next meeting 00:48:51 <-- | _blah_ has left #fedora-meeting ( ) 00:48:51 < knurd> | thx everyone 00:48:54 < mmcgrath> | knurd: thanks 00:49:00 <-- | daMaestro has left #fedora-meeting ( "Leaving") 00:49:00 --- | You're now known as knurd_afk 00:49:03 < knurd_afk> | have fun! 00:49:08 < knurd_afk> | bye 00:49:15 <-- | orc_emac has left #fedora-meeting ( ) 00:49:28 <-- | Jeff_S has left #fedora-meeting ( )
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
00:40:41 < dgilmore> | i noticed that dag made some derogatory comments about epel on the centos mailing list 00:40:51 < quaid> | oh, good 00:40:58 < quaid> | nothing quite like keeping the flames warm 00:41:01 < dgilmore> | saying that we dont want to work with him 00:41:12 < quaid> | in fact
-snip-
00:42:05 < quaid> | it's hard because these guys all had good points 00:42:15 < quaid> | but they put way too much heat into it 00:42:29 < quaid> | and burned the bridge before it could be built 00:42:45 < quaid> | anyway, water under the ... oh, wait, nevermind 00:42:49 < knurd> | we maybe should some carefully choose words into the wiki 00:42:55 < knurd> | why we didn#t go for repotags
-snip-
My statements are *NOT* about repotags. Repotags would not provide compatibility, but repotags would help cope with incompatibility.
Nevertheless, my statements had nothing to do with repotags.
00:43:03 < dgilmore> | http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-July/083569.html 00:43:04 < quaid> | a good FAQ entry 00:43:08 < knurd> | and that we suggest that our contributors cooperate
I stand by that statement. There is no interest from EPEL to work together with other repositories. The policy is to be the one and only single repository for RHEL/CentOS.
EPEL is in its right to go for that, but that should be advertised. Instead what is happening is that EPEL is claiming that 'their contributors cooperate'. Much like Fedora Extras in the past claimed this.
If Fedora Extras did cooperate, their may not have been any compatibilities and who knows, there may not have been an RPMforge, or an ATrpms today.
Nevertheless, if someone would say exactly that
"EPEL is not interested in compatibility with other repositories" or even "EPEL claims it is impossible to achieve compatibility with 3rd party repositories"
He is starting a flameware ? Is being derogatory ?
I can understand that EPEL wants to hide this fact from the public, or create another perception.
But EPEL is being dishonest about its intentions to lure packagers and users.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On 17.07.2007 21:05, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
00:40:41 < dgilmore> | i noticed that dag made some derogatory comments about epel on the centos mailing list 00:40:51 < quaid> | oh, good 00:40:58 < quaid> | nothing quite like keeping the flames warm 00:41:01 < dgilmore> | saying that we dont want to work with him 00:41:12 < quaid> | in fact
-snip-
00:42:05 < quaid> | it's hard because these guys all had good points 00:42:15 < quaid> | but they put way too much heat into it 00:42:29 < quaid> | and burned the bridge before it could be built 00:42:45 < quaid> | anyway, water under the ... oh, wait, nevermind 00:42:49 < knurd> | we maybe should some carefully choose words into the wiki 00:42:55 < knurd> | why we didn#t go for repotags
-snip-
My statements are *NOT* about repotags.
And my statements were not about your statements -- they just triggered a "we should document the reasons why we do some things (like for example no repotags) the way we do them" for me.
That's all.
[...]
CU knurd
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dag Wieers -
Thorsten Leemhuis