On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote: > Andy Gospodarek schrieb: > >Well put, Paul. Packages that mostly run standalone are appropriate > >candidates for a rebase (like freehoo and firefox), but those that serve > >as libraries or building blocks for other components should try to stay > >as stable as possible from an ABI/API perspective. > > I would like to add the distinction between "server" and "desktop" software. > While both categories are not always disjoint, it this the distinction is > useful > nevertheless: Some things like Firefox, OpenOffice etc. can be updated more > often than something like Exim, Apache, ... >
That is an excellent point. Should we consider breaking EPEL into an EPEL-Base and EPEL-Desktop? If we had separate repos it might be helpful. I would be in favor of that and then possibly change the way we queue something to move from testing to stable so that it can remain in testing longer. _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
