On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 05:48:25PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 05/12/2010 04:00 AM, BJ Dierkes wrote: > >> Granted, postgresql84 is likely a one-off for Redhat because they and > >> Fedora Infrastructure use PgSQL. However on this same note, the IUS > >> Community Project [1] has the same exact process for 'replacing' RHEL > >> packages with updated counterparts (i.e. php replaced by php52, php53, > >> etc). Being the primary maintainer of IUS, my question has to do with the > >> fact that IUS relies on EPEL and is meant to compliment both RHEL and EPEL > >> with optional upgrades for packages that are locked (incompatible upgrade > >> paths) on a branch and can't update. The last thing I want is to maintain > >> a package in IUS, that would be accepted and benefit EPEL. Seeing as > >> RHEL allows the practice of Conflict/Replace ... is this a policy that > >> EPEL would also embrace? Or is it something we want to strictly avoid as, > >> with anything, it has the potential to complicate things. > >> > > > > IMO, I think it is time for EPEL to merge with IUS. We should strive > > to create parallel installable packages as much as possible but if there > > is a explicit package conflict and NOT a silent obsolete, then it should > > be allowed. I would avoid integrating apps that build on such conflict > > infrastructure packages however. > > Ok having dealt with several ugly packages.. I have to agree that > parallel installed packages is the way to go for most webapps. The > issues I see will be dealing with getting them through the Fedora > packaging reviews AND their Fedora upstream maintainers. Both who have > an interest in not having this happen as it duplicates work and makes > their lives hard in some ways. > Note that Fedora Guidelines would not pass Conflict and Replace style packages (such as postgresql8.4 apparently does) at the moment. However, either that could be changed with a suitable draft and enough thought behind it or EPEL could allow it where Fedora does not.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts -Toshio
pgpATgv6xVBt3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
