On 21 April 2016 at 10:59, Peter Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:50 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> I've built an environment-modules based gcc-5.3.1 for RHEL6 that lives >> side-by-side with vendor packages - it installs to /opt/ and has a >> name{version} scheme to avoid conflicts, which I'd like to include in EPEL6. >> >> In accordance with the guidelines >> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Still_unsure_if_a_package_is_fine_for_EPEL.3F) >> I'm asking here if this is appropriate or, if not, how can I modify it so >> gcc-5 can make it into EPEL. >> >> I can provide a working srpm for both binutils2.26 and gcc5.3.1 (the >> binutils is required, and also builds to /opt and enabled via modules). > > This sounds very much like a software collection (SCL) and I don't > believe we have a agreed policy on how that is done for EPEL (see list > archives)
I agree. At this moment, I don't think Fedora packages can have things in /opt/ or /usr/local so I think this currently falls outside of what could be put in EPEL. > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected] -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
