On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 09:33:08AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > 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...
Good question. I would think that EPEL-Desktop would be everything and EPEL-Base would be just the components that we deem important enough to not take huge backports each time. Basically Base would be a subset of Desktop. _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
