Thanks for spending a little time to explain Jason, it is appreciated. >> "DS" == Daniel Sutcliffe <d...@chairfour.com> writes: > DS> On deeper investigation I see Fedora has packages from this newer > DS> fork so I wonder why these have never found there way to EPEL.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <ti...@math.uh.edu> wrote: > Because we don't just push things to EPEL; it's supposed to be stable. I fully realize this, and was under no illusion that things "just got pushed" - in no way was this meant to be a dig at any maintainers as I understand all the work it takes to keep things stable and yet minimize the known problems. I realized after I sent the above that the fact that systemd has become almost ubiquitous is making it harder and harder to support packages for EL6 and earlier and was thus am a lot less surprised than I was when I first found this discrepancy. > And while I maintain the Fedora packages, I avoid maintaining things for > EPEL and so all I'll do is push an occasional security patch. I did > push an update to EPEL7 because people asked nicely and the Fedora > package would build there without modification, but that's not the case > for EPEL6 (and the ancient EPEL5, which I avoid like the plague). I unfortunately have the unenviable task of maintaining a number of EL6 servers (and even a couple of EL5) and I realize I probably have many hours ahead spent hacking .spec files whilst this situation continues :( I have just managed to produce a denyhosts-3.0-0.el6.noarch.rpm so soon enough I shall have a better idea if my original issues are going to be improved by this later version of denyhosts. Cheers /dan -- Daniel Sutcliffe <d...@chairfour.com> Chair Four Development Group LLC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Denyhosts-user mailing list Denyhosts-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/denyhosts-user
