[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Joe Julian
On February 18, 2016 7:08:34 PM PST, Michael Stahnke wrote: >I was trying to reply to everything inline, but being the responsible >posters ya'll are, you trimmed and everything leaving context harder to >just jump in on :) > >Way back in the day when I had a lot more

[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Manuel Wolfshant
On 02/19/2016 04:16 AM, ~Stack~ wrote: [snip] 1. Packages will never disappear. [They don't disappear from Fedora 12 even if it is archived.. ] To my understanding we never made this promise. We should try and communicate why it's NOT something we promise. Could you elaborate on this

[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread ~Stack~
On 02/18/2016 06:29 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 18 February 2016 at 14:13, ~Stack~ wrote: >> On 02/18/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700 >>> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> [snip] 1. Packages will never

[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 18 February 2016 at 14:13, ~Stack~ wrote: > On 02/18/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700 >> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > [snip] >>> 1. Packages will never disappear. [They don't disappear from Fedora 12 >>>even

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 18 February 2016 at 16:37, Dave Johansen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Bryan J Smith wrote: >> >> Dave Johansen wrote: >> > RHSCL is a non-starter where I work (and I imagine at other >> > locations). 2-3 years of support just isn't

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Bryan J Smith
Dave Johansen wrote: > RHSCL is a non-starter where I work (and I imagine at other > locations). 2-3 years of support just isn't enough to make it a > worthwhile investment. Well, there usually _is_ more than one (1) [RH]SCL per RHEL release. So it's more like 2-3 releases that "rebase" every 2+

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Dave Johansen
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Bryan J Smith wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Sorry what I meant that it is built against all of RHEL not just a > > couple of channels. Again this isn't a promise we ever made, but one > > people assume we have made (and get

[EPEL-devel] %autosetup for EL6, epel-rpm-macros-6 license change

2016-02-18 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
It appears that it's actually trivial to add %autosetup to RHEL6. You just need the Fedora macros plus a couple of extra definitions. That's in git now. I don't want to push this to testing because there's another version soaking in testing which I don't want to supersede. However, you can

[EPEL-devel] Re: Report on various meetings at FOSDEM.

2016-02-18 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 18 February 2016 at 12:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:42:18 -0700 > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >> >> Apologies and So Forth >> >> >> >> First, I would like to apologize for the delay in

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Bryan J Smith
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Sorry what I meant that it is built against all of RHEL not just a > couple of channels. Again this isn't a promise we ever made, but one > people assume we have made (and get surprised when they find out > differently). I can only imagine how difficult this gets for

[EPEL-devel] related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread ~Stack~
On 02/18/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700 > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: [snip] >> 1. Packages will never disappear. [They don't disappear from Fedora 12 >>even if it is archived.. ] > > To my understanding we never made this promise. We

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 18 February 2016 at 12:56, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> 3. Packages are built against all of an Enterprise Linux 'base' (EG >>whatever is in CentOS/Scientific Linux base). > > I thought we were always clear that we built against RHEL. > But perhaps not. > Sorry what I meant

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:11:28 -0800 Joe Julian wrote: > On February 18, 2016 11:56:54 AM PST, Kevin Fenzi > wrote: > >On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700 > >Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > >...snip... > > > >> 2. Packages in EPEL will

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

2016-02-18 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700 Stephen John Smoogen wrote: ...snip... > However during that time there have been many > rules which it has tried to keep: > > 1. Do not do disruptive upgrades. Try to backport security fixes or do >upgrades which do not change API/ABI

[EPEL-devel] Re: Report on various meetings at FOSDEM.

2016-02-18 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:42:18 -0700 Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Apologies and So Forth > > > > First, I would like to apologize for the delay in getting this post > done. I really didn't realize the amount of energy the