On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:25:10PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > 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. >
Would the same package exist potentially in either repository? I'm just trying to think how this might effect CentOS users who don't have the concept of Desktop/Server... I kind of like the -unstable option myself... Ray _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
