EPEL thoughts or views on packages deliberately left out of rhel?
s at shk.io
s at shk.io
Wed Apr 30 03:43:04 UTC 2014
On 2014-04-30 06:57, Jim Perrin wrote:
> The RC for el7 specifically omits packages that have drawn interest
> the past. A few examples of such packages would be kmail and pidgin.
> kmail is ordinarily part of the kde-pim suite, but is stripped from
> final build via some 'rm' handiwork in the spec. Pidgin is omitted
> the build via a check to see if the build host is rhel. The libs are
> used and included, but the binary is no longer produced.
In the pidgin case is libpurple the main thing that gets used in RHEL?
If so but it's under the 'pidgin' namespace then maybe a -bin package
could be provided via EPEL or some other means. Alternatively it might
make sense to file a BZ to have it moved under a different package name
kmail seems like a more simple case - build an alternate spec which
removed everything from the source tarball *except* kmail?
Just spitballing here to get the conversation started...
> I'm curious to know if anyone from the epel side has thought about
> these might be included. This doesn't appear to be a more
> straightforward case like thunderbird, but would require some
> to not overwrite core packages.
> Thoughts as to how this might be accomplished?
More information about the epel-devel