EPEL epel7 planning and processes

[Morten Stevens]

On 14.12.2013 03:56, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
> <tchollingsworth at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:36:48 -0700
>>> We might go with epel7. The reason is that some people seem to have
>>> confusion about the branches being 'elN'. "Oh, this is rhel6" No, it's
>>> epel6, not rhel.
>>>
>>> Overall pretty minor either way.
>>
>> Yeah, I have some shell functions and little scripts that would have
>> to be adjusted, but they'd need to be adjusted to {6,7} anyway, so
>> whatever.
>
> My preference is for "el7", since it's shorter to type :)

My preference is also "el7", because we have also a "Packager" and 
"Vendor" tag to declare these packages as Fedora EPEL (and not rhel) 
packages.

That's also an interesting thing when rebuilding CentOS packages to 
match the upstream dist tag.

Best regards,

Morten