Ok there are a class of packages we are running into which I would consider dead-end packages. The upstream usually makes changes between major releases which make former releases non-functional without some work (or in some cases LOTs of work). I think we should look at these packages as not falling under standard packaging as it becomes a pain in the ass to deal with on an enterprise packaging standpoint.
Pulling up something I brought up a long time ago, I would like us to figure out ways to deal with this.] As Bernard Johnson pointed out we need to work on a naming convention for these applications to deal with the fact that well, people rely on them, and their update policy is a lot of the time crap. So taking Bernards and some stuff we talked about a year or two back.. lets see if we can do the following: 1) Declare a package will need to follow 'Bad-EOL' policy (whatever that is finally decided) 2) Change the naming of the current package from <package>-x.y.z to <package>xy-x.y.z with appropriate tags (obsolete? replaces with predjudice?) to replace the package. 3) If EOL of old package add a standard file in the package outlining that EPEL is EOL this package and will not do updates without community help to do so. Also outlining that upgrading to newer versions of the package is not simple and you should follow steps at "Fill in page here if it exists." 3) Make packages in newer versions also match this name: <package>(x+1).y.z-(x+1).y.z and keep that up to date until its no longer possible. 4) Goto #2 when needed. -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
