On 04/05/2016 09:37 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Dave Howorth <dhowo...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk <mailto:dhowo...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>> wrote:

    On 2016-04-05 16:40, Alan Bartlett wrote:

        On 5 April 2016 at 15:57, Yasha Karant <ykar...@csusb.edu
        <mailto:ykar...@csusb.edu>> wrote:

            I know from past experience that ElRepo persons do read
            and reply to this
            list.  Does any EPEL person?  If not, does anyone know how
            to contact the
            EPEL maintainers?

            There is an issue with the EPEL MATE install method.

            Yasha Karant

        Let me correct your above two blunders:

        (1) The ELRepo Project is not EPEL.
        (2) I, my fellow founders and administrators of the ELRepo
        Project do
        read this mailing list and do respond, when appropriate.

    I don't understand why you accuse Yasha of two blunders?

    His original post makes it clear that he understands the
    difference between ElRepo and EPEL, so why do you think that is a

    He says that ElRepo DO read the list, which you then confirm, so
    why is that a blunder?

    I think you owe him an apology, unless I have seriously
    misunderstood something.

OK ... I see that there was some misunderstanding ...

Let's make peace here, shall we?

Regarding contacting EPEL maintainers, I see the following description in EPEL's FAQ:

"You can find help or discuss issues on the epel-devel mailing list or IRC channel #epel on Freenode. Report issues against EPEL via bugzilla" ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Where_can_I_find_help_or_report_issues.3F )

Just checked the epel-devel mailing list. It does not seem to be actively used at this moment. So, I would suggest use of bugzilla.redhat.com <http://bugzilla.redhat.com> is the way to go.

Regarding ELRepo, while we (ELRepo team members) are reading this SL list, it is best to use ELRepo's mailing list to address any issue or ask questions ( http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo ) rather than here. In fact, I encourage everyone who uses ELRepo's packages to subscribe to the list.

Although you are correct that you seriously did misunderstand what I posted, what you have posted confirms what I have observed after my posting on EPEL to the SL list: contacting anyone who knows EPEL and getting a meaningful response is about the same as I experienced with SuSE support (non-existent except for SLES and then only to "large" "corporate" customers). The comment I received from a person who gets the EPEL Red Hat Bugzilla "reports" was this:

I don't have much to do with MATE directly (I'm mostly a package sponsor for 
some of the folks more directly involved).

So, I'd recommend sticking relevant details in bugzilla

End quote.

Note that, unlike ELRepo folks with whom one can communicate via the SL list (persons who even are 
willing to identify themselves, and not "hide" behind some Bugzilla-like interface), EPEL 
seems much more unwilling to discuss matters.  Has an EPEL "maintainer" ever (recently) 
posted/replied to the SL liist?

I fully understand that the ELRepo folks are (presumably) volunteers, and thus may have 
little real free time to address such issues; hence, one should not pester them, 
particularly from typical enthusiast "users".  I suspect that EPEL persons in 
part may, as with CentOS, now be paid by Red Hat, but I do not know this for a fact.  I 
have had few issues with ELRepo packages, and those I or others have had
seem to be well addressed (not always solved -- sometimes ithe solution is to 
wait for a later updated release) by the ELRepo correspondents to this SL llist.

On this point, a question.  I have been told (but not verified as a fact) that 
the Ubuntu equivalent to the main SL repository contains (all?) packages that 
one must, for any EL family distro, find on the master (SL, CentOS, etc.) 
repository and then hunt ELRepo, EPEL, and for some items, NUX and others (in 
which case I only enable software sources such as NUX during the actual 
installation of an RPM
package that only is available in source or on  such a repository).  As I 
indicated in a previous post, I have no reason at the present time to switch to 
Ubuntu LTS (and definitely will not be going back to either
OpenSUSE or SLES); however, I am curious if the above claim is factual.  Such a 
"single" repository is much more convenient (and probably more consistent, 
without dependency conflicts) than rpmfind on the web, etc.

Yasha Karant

Yasha Karant

Reply via email to