RFC: Package maintenance and update policy for EPEL -- take 1

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:45:01 +0100
fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> find below my take for a "Package maintenance and update policy for 
> EPEL". You an find it in the wiki at:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies/PackageMaintenanceAndUpdates
> 
> If you spot typos (there are probably still some...) please fix them
> in the wiki directly -- that's why the document is there ;-)
> 
> Did I miss anything? Do people like the general direction?

Yeah, this looks good to me... 

Some minor comments: 

>The changes that cant be avoided get routed into different release
> trees. Only updates that fix important bugs (say: data-corruption,
> security problems, really annoying bugs) go to a testing branch for a
> short time period and then build a second time for the stable branch;
> those people that sign and push the EPEL packages to the public repo
> will skim over the list of updated packages for the stable repo to
> make sure that sure the goal "only important updates for the stable
> branch" is fulfilled.

Can we possibly require any package that wants to push to the current
release to have a bug filed and mention that in the changelog? 
This would make looking and making sure a package is supposed to fix a
data-corruption/security/serious bug much easier on people who push the
updates. 

We might want to also mention (although perhaps it's just common sense)
that if people have any questions about how they should handle an
upgrade in their package, they should consult this list and/or the SIG
members for input. It might be that someone here could find or be able
to generate a backported fix when a maintainer is unable to. 

Anyhow, looks good to me. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20070309/026c9f2d/attachment.sig>