On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 13:51:17 -0700 Stephen John Smoogen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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: ...snip... I have been pondering on this as well, and I wonder if another better approach might be: - Add another repo called "slipstream" or "bleeding" or "incompatibeupdates" or some other catchy name. - Make new versions for the packages that fall into this issue in that repo. ie, mediawiki, rdiff-backup, moin, nagios-3, etc. - For the case of packages where the old version works and still is supported, let it stay in the normal epel/testing repo in addition. For things that are not supported/broken/have known security issues, remove them from the epel/testing repo. - Push updates to the bleeding repo as needed. The expectation for that repo would be: We will try and avoid incompatible upgrades, but that may be impossible, so you should watch every update from this repo and test it in your env. Packages in the bleeding repo may well be newer than ones in the stable repo. You should EITHER use the stable repo only, or the bleeding+stable. I know another repo will be a big pain, but I think this would help us communicate to our users when something is a web app that is not really stable at all and updates rapidly and incompatibly. I think another repo (disabled by default) would communicate this better than 'nagios3' or 'mediawiki-foo' in the "stable" repo. Thoughts? kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
