pexepct is in RHEL and should be dropped from EPEL

[Stephen John Smoogen]

2009/1/23 Robert Scheck <robert at fedoraproject.org>:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Does this go to branching for minor RHEL releases? If so, I think the
>> topic was raised before and considered to be way too much work for the
>> small group of people that make up EPEL's core-maintenance team.
>
> Yes, I've gotten this and can understand that as well.
>
> But my question, I handed out to Mike before as well, didn't get still not
> answered until now: Why do we _explicitly_ want to _break_ in EPEL what is
> working and good enough since RHEL 5.0? Please show me the reason why we
> actually really need to remove it.

EPEL is only meant to work with the latest RHEL tree (eg the latest Y
branch... ). This is a liability in how the system was set up but a
boon in how much complexity we could handle when setting it up. I
would love to be able to handle 5.x trees but what happens when the
newest pexpect comes out now... and you update. The 5.0 person is
happy because they got an update.. the 5.2 person has problems because
it doesn't match what they are expecting from RHN... eg we have broken
their assumption. And yes this sucks... but unless we are not upstream
for RHEL. We are a side-stream, and have to deal with the overflows
and erosion from the bigger river next to us.

> Maybe we can't support each z-series of RHEL, but do we really have because
> of that to explicitly break something then which would go smoothly by its
> own? It thought until now, we're contributors and try to enhance RHEL with
> EPEL if and wherever it is possible, but somehow I'm (nearly?) alone with
> this opinion on the list...

My opinion is that its broken, but I do not see a solution that we can
'afford' to make without completely re-engineering the project which I
am open to hearing how it can be done.

> EPEL is Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux, right? There are the words and
> phrases "Extra Packages" and "Enterprise". Enterprise implicits IMHO, that
> nothing breaks, everything goes smoothly; "Extra Packages" makes expection
> to users of additional packages. Our current plan with removing packages in
> EPEL that got obsoleted due imports into RHEL (instead of just freezing the
> obsoleted EPEL packagesthem) has for me just less relationship with Extra
> Packages for Enterprise Linux.
>
>
> Greetings,
>  Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"