Unstable EPEL? (frequent package updates)

[Paul Howarth]

Felix Schwarz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> in the past few months there were quite a few packages in EPEL
> which got version updates. This has come to a point where I
> seriously doubt my understanding of the EPEL policy.
> 
> Rahul Sundaram wrote [1]:
> "The simple rule: Don't release an update unless absolutely necessary.
> This is to avoid regressions."
> 
> This was exactly my understanding of how package updates should be
> done in EPEL.
> 
> But obviously other packagers don't see this policy so strictly - or
> maybe I'm just too blind to find important information why all these
> updates were absolutely necessary.
> 
> One example is shorewall which had several updates in the last months,
> always to match the latest upstream version:
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/shorewall/EL-5/shorewall.spec?rev=1.48 
> 
> Thankfully, no update caused trouble for me but I'm a bit sceptical if this
> update policy is really healthy for EPEL.
> 
> There are other packages, too. I don't want to list every packages and some
> updates are really nice. But let's take python-genshi 0.5 which is currently
> in testing for EPEL 5 and about to be pushed shortly:
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/python-genshi/EL-5/python-genshi.spec 
> 
> 
> 0.5 changed some semantics of py:match and I personally had troubles when
> upgrading from 0.4.4 to 0.5. So while most people won't experience any problems,
> this is one of the upgrades that can cause pain.
> 
> Some other examples:
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/python-lxml/EL-5/python-lxml.spec
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/rpms/python-paste/EL-5/python-paste.spec 
> 
> 
> I understand that there are packages like Firefox, Wine and clamav which must be
> always at the latest version because it makes no sense/its impossible to backport
> all the important stuff. But what I don't understand is why all these library
> packages are updated so often.
> 
> IMHO EPEL should have more control over updates so that every package update gets
> a solid reasoning why the package has to updated, if there are known compatibility
> issues and so on...
> 
> I always thought of EPEL as 'this is an repository where I can pull updates without
> too much caution because the guys will really make sure that every package is
> necessary'.
> </rant>
> 
> fs
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2008-April/msg00019.html

Agree 100%. I tend to take the same approach on stable Fedora releases 
too, but it's even more important to do so in EPEL.

Paul.