To update or not to update...

Patrice Dumas pertusus at
Sat Aug 18 15:19:49 UTC 2007

On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 10:09:10AM -0500, 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.

We cannot rely on RH for packages in EPEL that have are similar with
LAMP stack with respect with updating.

> A rolling repo should just be a symlink to Fedora. That's why Fedora exists.

Not exaclty. It would maybe share some similarities with fedora but 
without a need to upgrade the base os. That's completly different. It
isn't clear to me that it is very usefull, though, but it certainly adds

And also you may also want to keep ABI compatibility while still updating 
more rapidly some parts, the desktop for example.


More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list