On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:25:10 -0500 > Greg Swift <gregsw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If an additional repo is decided to be the way to go, what would it >> take to develop a mostly 'complete' list along with a list of existing >> howtos or subject matter experts that can be referenced by the poor >> soul(s) who volunteer to do the work? > > Hard to say until we had such a list. ;)
Fun ;) So that was partially intended as "who not already responding do i need to poke and prod to try and find this out?" And if you are one of those wonderful people, consider yourself poked and prodded :) >> > And I'm sure there's other issues... it would not be at all easy, >> > and I would prefer to avoid it. >> >> understandably. although at this point I'm wondering a few things: >> >> 1: since multiple bits have brought this up and no one has come up >> with a better solution, is this the way we need to go? > > I'm still not sure. ;) > >> 2: would a single EPEL-supplemental/rolling/fubar meet the needs of >> both of these paths? > > I don't know. I'd love to hear from those that have cases not handled > by current EPEL. me too >> 3: is it possible to do the numbered packages in the same git >> repositories without creating a whole separate package path? is it >> reasonable? > > I don't know. I guess it would need to be 'epel6-rolling' and > 'epel5-rolling' as seperate branches in git. so ... *insert tongue in cheek* i've now decided we should use REPEL as the name. maybe that would resolve the 'i used it and through it was stable' issue *remove tongue from cheek* _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
