[EPEL] EPEL -- the way forward

[Michael Stahnke]

On 2/23/07, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/07, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 08:47 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > >
> > >> One idea we want to promote is making the packaging into a job role
> > >> instead of a personal side-project.  This is possible and useful where
> > >> your employer or other outside organization benefits from your package
> > >> in EPEL.  For example, your infrastructure requires package Foo be
> > >> rebuilt in EPEL.  If you make package maintenance part of your job role,
> > >> you gain:
> > >>
> > >
> > > Is your intention to preclude people that _are_ doing it as a side
> > > project?
> > >

If a company has need for package foo that requires 15 other packages,
would you like that company to be responsable for the 15 dependencies
also?


> > not preclude but join them together.  I suspect the climate for EPEL
> > will be a lot different from Extras.  It'll be interesting to see if
> > someone like IBM comes in and starts working with Joe Blow on package B
> > because IBM needs to roll it out to 20,000 customers.
> >
>
> One of the things I have run into for needs for Extras for Enterprise
> at various sites is that there are three different camps you need to
> be able to satisfy.
>
> Camp1 wants the same release for the lifetime of the product until it
> can no longer be patched. So if clamav-0.88.1 was what was released
> then they want patches backported until the end of the 7 years of
> support for say RHEL-4. So when 4.5.1 comes out, they want only things
> updated that have security updates and not API/ABI changes. Currently
> they will take FCL-3 for say RHEL-4 and use whatever is in that repo
> til time ends.
>
> Camp2 wants general updates to match the quarterly release cycle. They
> dont want to upgrade every 4 days to the latest, but they want
> technology upgrades at regular times. So say clamav is the same for
> RHEL-4.5.0 but want 4.6.0 to have whatever is considered stable at
> that time. Currently they are taking a src.rpm from say FCL-5 and when
> FCL-6 comes out upgrading to what was in there. They will upgrade
> other stuff when it is needed.
>
> Camp3 wants to get the latest stuff when it is available. They need it
> for whatever project and are basically wanting a 'barely-qa'd
> rawhide'. Currently they are taking Fedora rawhide and compiling it to
> meet daily/weekly needs.
>
> One thing we need to figure out what we can afford to do. I think
> Camp3 is the easiest for volunteers to do.. and Camp2 has the largest
> number of people. Camp1 should be left to people who are going to be
> paid for it. It takes the most work and has the least 'reward'.
>
Couldn't have said this better myself.  This has been where most of
questions about EPEL have stemmed from.




>
> --
> Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
> How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
> in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>