To update or not to update...

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 18.08.2007 17:09, Michael Stahnke wrote:
>> But we could do it in two repos -- one stable EPEL repo and a "EPEL
>> rolling" on top of it -- then users could individually select which
>> software they want in newer versions.
> 
> If I want a rolling upstream, why am I using EL?  You use a EL to
> avoid quick releases and be on supported ABI compatible versions of
> X,Y,Z for long periods of time.  The notable exceptions are things
> like a LAMP stack, but RH provides subscriptions and updates to that
> more frequently on EL.
> 
> A rolling repo should just be a symlink to Fedora. That's why Fedora exists.

I'd mostly agree and that's why I don't think a rolling repo should be
high on our todo-list.

Nevertheless it seems people often are in the need to have a stable base
with "newer version of foo and bar" on it. But everyone needs different
"foo and bars" (and thus also defines the packageset of the stable base
differently).

I imagine a EPEL rolling add-one repo (on top of stable EPEL) together
with a yum-plugin where people can configure to get "foo and bar" from
EPEL rolling could serve those users.

But that's atm nothing more then "dreaming how a solution for those
users could look like".

CU
thl