el-4 confusion, misstatement on Wiki?

[Karsten Wade]

Is this inaccurate/old?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...

If so, what do we want to say instead?

- Karsten

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> Is this inaccurate/old?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...

It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
> If so, what do we want to say instead?

"We are doing EPEL4 and if you look for a SRPM to take as base besides
looking at the FC-3 branch please also take a look at those from
http://centos.karan.org/, as those packages are known to work for EL4
and tested there. "

CU
thl

[Rahul Sundaram]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > Is this inaccurate/old?
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
>
> It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.

How is it considered accurate when there are hundreds of packages in the 
EL 4 branch?

Rahul

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 01.08.2007 15:50, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > > Is this inaccurate/old?
> > >
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
> >
> > It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
>
> How is it considered accurate when there are hundreds of packages in the 
> EL 4 branch?

Seems you read something totally different into it then I do. Anyway,
the stuff got borked over time. I added the below to the FAQ and removed
the other stuff.

=== Should I take old or up2date software as a base for EPEL4? ===

The packages from Fedora Core and Extras 3 are a good staring base for
EPEL 4. The packages from Fedora Extras 3 were even rebuild for EL4
already and shipped by and external repo -- consider to look there for
additional fixes before building your package for EPEL4.

CU
thl

[Karsten Wade]

On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 06:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > Is this inaccurate/old?
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
>
> It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.

D'oh!  That wasn't what I meant to point to, but it looks like you
removed the part that confused me.  You did remove it, right?  The
changelog says, "move a part to the faq that belongs there".  But this
content is old, right?  I see you didn't put it into the FAQ.

- === What about EPEL for RHEL 4? ===
- 
- We start EPEL two years after RHEL4 started getting shipped. Pushing
- out packages today that were up2date two years ago might look a bit
- odd and will be hard to realize -- what version to choose exactly? So
- we simply take a slightly different route for EPEL4 and suggest our
- maintainers to consider using the stuff from http://centos.karan.org/
- (which are based on Fedora Extras 3) as base for packages in EPEL4 --
- that stuff is known to work and tested, so is a good base for the
- EPEL4 branch. Sure, the outcome would have looked a bit different than
- where we might have landed if we would have started EPEL two years
- ago, but well, we start now. ;-)
-

[Rahul Sundaram]

Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 06:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > > Is this inaccurate/old?
> > >
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
> >
> > It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
>
> D'oh!  That wasn't what I meant to point to, but it looks like you
> removed the part that confused me.  You did remove it, right?  The
> changelog says, "move a part to the faq that belongs there".  But this
> content is old, right?  I see you didn't put it into the FAQ.

It is there in the FAQ now. Check again.

Rahul

[Karsten Wade]

On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Karsten Wade wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 06:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > > > Is this inaccurate/old?
> > > >
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
> > >
> > > It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
> >
> > D'oh!  That wasn't what I meant to point to, but it looks like you
> > removed the part that confused me.  You did remove it, right?  The
> > changelog says, "move a part to the faq that belongs there".  But this
> > content is old, right?  I see you didn't put it into the FAQ.
>
> It is there in the FAQ now. Check again.

OK, I see the revised form.  I read the original, and it made it sound
like, "We aren't doing EPEL 4, use karan.centos.org instead."  That is,
the wording was confusing, and Thorsten cleaned it up, so good.

- Karsten

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 7/31/07, Thorsten Leemhuis  wrote:
> On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > Is this inaccurate/old?
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
>
> It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
> > If so, what do we want to say instead?
>
> "We are doing EPEL4 and if you look for a SRPM to take as base besides
> looking at the FC-3 branch please also take a look at those from
> http://centos.karan.org/, as those packages are known to work for EL4
> and tested there. "

What about 3 and 2 :)?

[As I have to take a bunch of 5 stuff and recompile it on 2 because
the 3rd party software runs on 2 but wants newer stuff... whee.]

[Rahul Sundaram]

Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> What about 3 and 2 :)?
>
> [As I have to take a bunch of 5 stuff and recompile it on 2 because
> the 3rd party software runs on 2 but wants newer stuff... whee.]

Just noted that EPEL doesn't provide packages for these releases in the 
EPEL FAQ.

Rahul