On 28.09.2007 01:07, Jos Vos wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:55:59PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote: > >> Today I grabbed the latest rsyslog-1.19.6-2.fc8.src.rpm from Fedora >> Development and rebuilt it on RHEL4 32bit. Seems to work fine after very >> summary testing. >> Perhaps that should be the reference used for EPEL? Anyway, mainstream >> just released 1.19.8 today. > > Does EPEL have rules about what packages EPEL packages can be based on? > I mean: should EPEL packages be based only on non-test Fedora src.rpm's? > [...]
Fedora IMHO for EPEL is kind of "testing ground" (just like it is for RHEL). Having similar Specs used in EPEL and Fedora also makes exchanging bugfixes a whole lot easier. Thus it IMHO would be best for all if the EPEL spec file is based on the Fedora one. But that's not a hard requirement. >> I did notice it does not chkconfig off the syslog service after it's >> installed. > Question is what to do when adding a package (rsyslog) that in fact > obsoletes a regular RHEL5 package (sysklogd). One of the (in parts unwritten IIRC) rules is: don't disturb the distribution we build for (e.g. RHEL in this case). So obsoleting is a no go. > Personally, I would opt > for what I did: make sure installing the (rsyslog) package does not > affect anything related to regular RHEL5 packages (sysklogd) and let > the sysadmin do the config work afterwards (in this case doing two > chkconfig commands and editting two logrotate files). That should be fine. CU knurd _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
