[EPEL] EPEL -- the way forward

Michael Stahnke mastahnke at gmail.com
Fri Feb 23 18:07:53 UTC 2007

On 2/23/07, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/07, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 08:47 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > >
> > >> One idea we want to promote is making the packaging into a job role
> > >> instead of a personal side-project.  This is possible and useful where
> > >> your employer or other outside organization benefits from your package
> > >> in EPEL.  For example, your infrastructure requires package Foo be
> > >> rebuilt in EPEL.  If you make package maintenance part of your job role,
> > >> you gain:
> > >>
> > >
> > > Is your intention to preclude people that _are_ doing it as a side
> > > project?
> > >

If a company has need for package foo that requires 15 other packages,
would you like that company to be responsable for the 15 dependencies

> > not preclude but join them together.  I suspect the climate for EPEL
> > will be a lot different from Extras.  It'll be interesting to see if
> > someone like IBM comes in and starts working with Joe Blow on package B
> > because IBM needs to roll it out to 20,000 customers.
> >
> One of the things I have run into for needs for Extras for Enterprise
> at various sites is that there are three different camps you need to
> be able to satisfy.
> Camp1 wants the same release for the lifetime of the product until it
> can no longer be patched. So if clamav-0.88.1 was what was released
> then they want patches backported until the end of the 7 years of
> support for say RHEL-4. So when 4.5.1 comes out, they want only things
> updated that have security updates and not API/ABI changes. Currently
> they will take FCL-3 for say RHEL-4 and use whatever is in that repo
> til time ends.
> Camp2 wants general updates to match the quarterly release cycle. They
> dont want to upgrade every 4 days to the latest, but they want
> technology upgrades at regular times. So say clamav is the same for
> RHEL-4.5.0 but want 4.6.0 to have whatever is considered stable at
> that time. Currently they are taking a src.rpm from say FCL-5 and when
> FCL-6 comes out upgrading to what was in there. They will upgrade
> other stuff when it is needed.
> Camp3 wants to get the latest stuff when it is available. They need it
> for whatever project and are basically wanting a 'barely-qa'd
> rawhide'. Currently they are taking Fedora rawhide and compiling it to
> meet daily/weekly needs.
> One thing we need to figure out what we can afford to do. I think
> Camp3 is the easiest for volunteers to do.. and Camp2 has the largest
> number of people. Camp1 should be left to people who are going to be
> paid for it. It takes the most work and has the least 'reward'.
Couldn't have said this better myself.  This has been where most of
questions about EPEL have stemmed from.

> --
> Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
> How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
> in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

More information about the devel mailing list