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

On 19 February 2016 at 08:35, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:42:12 -0700 > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >> >> One of the requests was to have snapshots of the guidelines that we >> worked each channel against so that it was clearer what 5 wanted

[EPEL-devel] Re: Keeping old packages

On 02/19/2016 08:13 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 18 February 2016 at 19:16, ~Stack~ wrote: >> 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:

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL repos to keep older RPMs to keep backward compatibility and open the road for more

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:53 PM, Gilles Dubreuil wrote: > Hello, > > The idea, which is probably not new or has been asked before, is about > having EPEL repos to behave like RHEL repos and keep RPMs version from > previous release/updates. > > The best case scenario is for

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

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > 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

[EPEL-devel] EPEL repos to keep older RPMs to keep backward compatibility and open the road for more

Hello, The idea, which is probably not new or has been asked before, is about having EPEL repos to behave like RHEL repos and keep RPMs version from previous release/updates. The best case scenario is for recent version of the programming languages, but it could apply to many other packages.

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

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:22:07 -0700 Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > One of the issues that I am finding is that most software these days > has only a 3 year lifetime at best.. if you want it to be longer you > are going to pay for it either by maintaining it yourself or paying >

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

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:42:12 -0700 Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > One of the requests was to have snapshots of the guidelines that we > worked each channel against so that it was clearer what 5 wanted > versus 6 wanted. Sure, we have it divided into 5 and 6 here (I assume we

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

On 18 February 2016 at 19:16, ~Stack~ wrote: > 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