Mock for EPEL4 with broken deps for ages

Michael Schwendt mschwendt at
Tue Aug 10 21:53:28 UTC 2010

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:52 -0600, Stephen wrote:

> The best thing about EPEL is that there are no " the EPEL project
> leaders" beyond those that are interested in the project.

There's a page that distinguishes between the
and the
It's rather detailed and, for example, explains that the EPEL Steering
Committee handles "practical packaging [...] maintenance and update policy
for EPEL", and therefore its members should have interest in an issue like

> Since you have expressed a lot of interest in things..

Whether I have "a lot of interest" in EPEL, some interest only, or no
interest at all, depends on several criteria. One such criterion is
whether EPEL is founded on solid groundwork.

The fact that this Mock breakage would have been found by a broken deps
check (which is on the EPEL schedule for years) is just a minor detail.

> what are your ideas on how we can fix this problem?

I don't understand EPEL yet.

> 1) We should  remove the FAQ documents?


There's a lot of "talk" in those FAQs, which doesn't match reality. I'd
favour a more honest/self-critical view of what EPEL is able to deliver
today … as opposed to what it could deliver if it had enough volunteers
to contribute.

> 2) Would you like to be the EPEL-EL4 Tsar to deal with these issues?

At present, you could not even tell _how_ "to deal with these issues".
I've found only one. How many others are there? (e.g. run-time issues)

One thing for sure, it wouldn't be much fun to have one group bring
a package into EPEL and see how they drop the ball long before dist EOL.
And then point at the FAQ and hope for another person (or group) to
drag the package out of the mud.

Bodhi doesn't know about any substantial testing of EPEL updates:

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list