EPEL-5 and RHEL 5.1 packages

[Kyle Gonzales]

On Nov 8, 2007 5:36 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2007 3:27 PM, Kyle Gonzales <kyle.gonzales at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 2007 4:39 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 08.11.2007 22:22, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:08:10 +0100
> > > > Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Which still does not solve the problem that started this thread...
> > > >
> > > > Correct.  To solve the problem at the start of this thread, perhaps it
> > > > would make sense to pre-populate the buildsystem with the next point
> > > > release bits at the same time they're being staged for release, or
> > > > close to it, so that EPEL can on the same day of a point release claim
> > > > that they support that release.  Just takes more cooperation between
> > > > EPEL leaders and Red Hat.
> > >
> > > And excludes all those contributers and users that don't have a RHEL
> > > license, as the resulting bits might lead to broken deps when one runs
> > > "yum update" on a CentOS machine right now (¹) with EPEL which depends
> > > on a lib that is shipped in the newly released RHEL update. Seems that's
> > > the case in the mail that started this thread.
> > >
> > > That would be totally unacceptable IMHO.
> >
> > So... users that DO have a RHEL license will have to wait for CentOS
> > devels to do their thing before they can get new packages?  What about
> > Scientific Linux or other RHEL clones?  Do those users have to wait
> > for all the clones?
> >
>
> Well someone is going to be broke. The issue is finding out what
> percentage of people will be broken the longest... and upsetting them
> :)

Ha!  True that.

-- 
Kyle Gonzales
kyle.gonzales at gmail.com
GPG Pub Key: 9C3FBD51

Read My Tech Blog:
http://techiebloggiethingie.blogspot.com/