[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 07:53:18PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > First, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. I wrote the > proposal as things that are inside EPEL's circle of influence with > most of the other items going to take a LOT of release engineering > work to accomplish.

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On 05/17/2018 06:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I think with our horrible history of naming this project EPEC is what we go with. I just want the new logo not to look like a horse's butt with tail. Already taken.

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:27 AM Martin Jackson wrote: > I agree that it makes sense to associate EPIC releases with EL "point" > or "y" releases. > Some orgs (like us) download new content on timers, and while it's not > wrong to say that people should read release notes and

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

I agree that it makes sense to associate EPIC releases with EL "point" or "y" releases. Some orgs (like us) download new content on timers, and while it's not wrong to say that people should read release notes and updates, there is currently a *lot* of content in EPEL etc to keep track of,

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

good idea, EPIC release --> rhel release, centOS release keep the old RPMS when EPIC package upgrade. no compatibility issue any more. ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On 17 May 2018 at 18:11, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:36:17PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> I have been worried about a negative feedback loop here on packagers. >> This is a new technology and packagers aren't usually people who care >>

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:36:17PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I have been worried about a negative feedback loop here on packagers. > This is a new technology and packagers aren't usually people who care > about EPEL. Having them to deal with multiple OS's they don't use > makes it more

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On 17 May 2018 at 15:31, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 03:06:43PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Modules > [...] >> EPIC-next >> >>The tooling for modules can match how Fedora approaches it. This >>means that rules for module

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:20 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 09:31:07PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > I currently provide an EPEL-safe version of DNF in my COPR[1] that I'm > > considering putting into EPEL, but it doesn't have the modularity stuff > >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On 16 May 2018 at 13:14, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > There's been a ton of talk about this over the years, but thanks a lot > to Smooge for making a more formal proposal we can look at and adjust > and see if we can get something we actually want to do. :) > > > On 05/15/2018 12:06 PM,

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 09:31:07PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > I currently provide an EPEL-safe version of DNF in my COPR[1] that I'm > considering putting into EPEL, but it doesn't have the modularity stuff > because it's too much of a mess right now. > [1]:

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

There's been a ton of talk about this over the years, but thanks a lot to Smooge for making a more formal proposal we can look at and adjust and see if we can get something we actually want to do. :) On 05/15/2018 12:06 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > EPIC Planning

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 PM Jim Perrin wrote: > I *think* the version of rpm has been bumped enough as of EL 7.5 to > support the tooling needed for modules. This would clearly need to be > verified, but if this is the case then modern version of dnf may be all > that's

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On 05/15/2018 12:06 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Modules > > EPIC-6 > >Because EL-6’s tooling is locked at this point, it does not make >sense to investigate modules. > > EPIC-7 > >Currently EL-7 does not support Fedora modules and would require >updates to