EPEL report week 37 2007

[Michael Stahnke]

On 9/18/07, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:00:26 +0200
> fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>
> ... snip...
>
> >  * repo layout
> >
> >   * the plan written at
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-a98bce5283ee336393aec81cf6fc90543c0f2277
> >  was to have directories for each release (e.g. have 5.0 as main repo
> > now and a symlink from 5 pointing to it; when 5.1 ships run "cp -al
> > 5.0 5.1" and adjust the "5" link to point to 5.1 instead; some weeks
> > or months later remove the 5.0 dir to save the space; 5.0 btw would
> > not be maintained anymore, we just leave it around for some
> > weeks/months). This would allow people still on EL5.0 (for example
> > those using derivates that do not ship 5.1 some weeks after RH does)
> > to use EPEL5.0 without running into dependency issues that might
> > arise when a package from EPEL5.1 depends on something from EL5.1;
> >
> >   *  seems lots of people forgot about that plan never realized it
> > full effects; do we still want that stuff? or in a modified way maybe?
>
> yeah, I didn't realize that was the full plan. Not sure why I didn't
> see that before.
>
> My concern with this is that the older repo will not be getting
> security updates, and that people will be depending on it not realizing
> it will go away. Not sure giving them a few weeks would assist any.
> People who don't want to update probibly won't update in a few weeks if
> there is no reason for them to do so.
>
> I propose the following instead.
>
> When 5.1 is released:
>
> - mv 5.0 to 5.1
> - link 5 and 5.0 to 5.1
>
> This does mean that if there is something in 5.1 thats a new
> dependency, 5.0 users will need to upgrade or not use that package.
> However, it means that security/big bugfixes will keep going in that
> repo, and that if there are no new dependencies, folks running 5.0 can
> keep using the repo.
>
> I don't think we have the manpower to maintain repos for each minor
> release. Also, aren't minor releases supposed to be ABI compatible?
I completely agree.  We don't have the manpower, or maintainer power
to do this any other way. (And yes they should be ABI compatible).



>
> >  * RHEL 5.1
> >
> >    * will likely be out soon; we don't know exactly when; thus the
> > estimated EPEL testing -> stable move that is pushed in parallel will
> > likely be a week (or two?) after EL 5.1 is out
>
> Do we want to try and push new stable packages out to the repo before
> 5.1 at some point here? I know we talked about doing monthly pushes of
> stable new packages from testing->stable.
>
> Also, I would really like to see the testing repo free of dependency
> issues before 5.1 is out. That would allow us to push everything in
> there into stable without problem.
>
> kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>
>
>