On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:59:45 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 21.01.2008 16:30, Joel Andres Granados wrote: > > Michael Schwendt wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:03:06 +0100, Joel Andres Granados wrote: > >>> Michael Schwendt wrote: > >>> Don't know what to make of it. So I assume from "You cannot downgrade a > >>> package > >>> without asking the epel-signers to delete a newer package", that the > >>> solution > >>> is to delete the newer package. right? > >> Mail the repo admins in accordance with the EPEL FAQ in the Wiki and > >> request removal of the 1.1.6 package. (it is enough to delete the src.rpm > >> and let repoprune kill the various binaries) > > ok. sent mail to EPEL signers group. :) > > Hmmm. Is it wise to remove it? If I understood the discussion correctly > then users that already have the currently newest version of > python-imaging in EPEL4 installed will never get a update should there > ever be released one with a EVRN lower then (none):1.1.6-3.el4.
But is the newer package in EPEL4 maintained actively? In CVS it is back at 1.1.4 already. Will any bug-fix/security-fix released for RHEL4 be ported to the >1.1.6 pkg in EPEL4? If that doesn't happen, keeping the 1.1.6 brown paper-bag in the repo makes no sense. > On the other hand: we cannot increase the epoch only in EPEL4 because > then the upgrade path to RHEL5 is broken (still/again). > > Which of the two things is worse? The third thing. ;) Replacing a pkg from RHEL ;-P and an attitude like "damage is done, we can't revert it". Next time it happens with a different package, you won't revert it either? _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
