On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:53:28 +0200 Michael Schwendt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:52 -0600, Stephen wrote: > > 1) We should remove the FAQ documents? > > Seriously? > > There's a lot of "talk" in those FAQs, which doesn't match reality. > I'd favour a more honest/self-critical view of what EPEL is able to > deliver today … as opposed to what it could deliver if it had enough > volunteers to contribute. Yeah, it would be great to re-do/re-work the wiki pages. Would someone be willing to step up to do that? > > 2) Would you like to be the EPEL-EL4 Tsar to deal with these issues? > > At present, you could not even tell _how_ "to deal with these issues". > I've found only one. How many others are there? (e.g. run-time issues) > > One thing for sure, it wouldn't be much fun to have one group bring > a package into EPEL and see how they drop the ball long before dist > EOL. And then point at the FAQ and hope for another person (or group) > to drag the package out of the mud. > > Bodhi doesn't know about any substantial testing of EPEL updates: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=EL-4 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=EL-5 Hopefully we can get that to change. fedora-easy-karma now works in epel5 at least. (After several rounds of bug fixing from Till. Thanks!). kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
