EPEL 7 question

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:10:31 -0600
Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I would've expected anything that exists in epel6 and doesn't exist
> > in rhel7 to get an epel7 branch. It seems a bit ludicrous doing it
> > manually

It's not. There's a bunch of things that are in epel6 that are
pointless to have in epel7. 

When we did epel6 we did that from epel5, and I think it worked pretty
poorly. There were packages where maintainers had no interest so
nothing ever got built, there were packages that made no sense anymore,
etc. 

> > - do I have to go through all the deps of any package I want to
> > build for epel7 and figure this out manually and file branch
> > requests for each package that isn't in rhel7? yeesh.

Yes, although by 'branch request' it's 'edit wiki page' or 'file bug
asking maintainer if they want to maintain it in epel7. 

> > Agreed... The only argument I can think of against it is that we
> > don't
> want stuff that's not being maintained from automatically making it's
> way into el7, but at the same time I don't have my list of packages
> memorized. I guess I'll have to come up with some shell-fu to walk
> through my git directories looking for instances of el6?

Right. We want things where someone is actually maintaining them. 

We also don't want things like: 

renamed packages since epel6. 
packages that were dropped since epel6. 
packages where maintainers want to maintain a newer version thats named
differently, etc. 

Additionally: this sort of thing is suited for the epel-devel
list...where it was discussed before we started... 

kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140116/387e06fd/attachment.sig>