On Nov 8, 2007 5:36 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2007 3:27 PM, Kyle Gonzales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2007 4:39 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 08.11.2007 22:22, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:08:10 +0100 > > > > Thorsten Leemhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Which still does not solve the problem that started this thread... > > > > > > > > Correct. To solve the problem at the start of this thread, perhaps it > > > > would make sense to pre-populate the buildsystem with the next point > > > > release bits at the same time they're being staged for release, or > > > > close to it, so that EPEL can on the same day of a point release claim > > > > that they support that release. Just takes more cooperation between > > > > EPEL leaders and Red Hat. > > > > > > And excludes all those contributers and users that don't have a RHEL > > > license, as the resulting bits might lead to broken deps when one runs > > > "yum update" on a CentOS machine right now (ยน) with EPEL which depends > > > on a lib that is shipped in the newly released RHEL update. Seems that's > > > the case in the mail that started this thread. > > > > > > That would be totally unacceptable IMHO. > > > > So... users that DO have a RHEL license will have to wait for CentOS > > devels to do their thing before they can get new packages? What about > > Scientific Linux or other RHEL clones? Do those users have to wait > > for all the clones? > > > > Well someone is going to be broke. The issue is finding out what > percentage of people will be broken the longest... and upsetting them > :)
Ha! True that. -- Kyle Gonzales [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Pub Key: 9C3FBD51 Read My Tech Blog: http://techiebloggiethingie.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
