On Tuesday, July 12, 2011 02:30:51 PM Björn Persson wrote: > Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > On Sunday, July 03, 2011 04:20:14 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > epel4 -> master > > > > epel-4 comes from FC-3 if it exists if not rawhide > > > > > epel5 -> master > > > > epel-5 comes from FC-6 if it exists if not rawhide > > > > > epel6 -> f12 > > > > epel-6 comes from F-12 if it exists if not rawhide > > May i ask what exactly you mean with "if it exists"? > > Fedpkg lists a remote "origin/f12" branch for all of my packages, so in > that sense they exist in F-12, but the el6 branches I got when my package > change requests were processed all started out with the same content as > the master branch. > > In this case I would have synchronized them with Rawhide anyway, and then > adapted them as necessary from there, so I'm not complaining, but I notice > a discrepancy between what I saw and what you're saying. > > When the time comes for EPEL 7 I will probably prefer that the packages are > branched from the most closely matching Fedora release (as Kevin says they > will probably be).
hrrm ok, well if it exists means if there is a branch. i guess there is a issue with the branching scripts. ill have to look at it Dennis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
