Is this inaccurate/old?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
If so, what do we want to say instead?
- Karsten
On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
Is this inaccurate/old?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
If so, what do we want to say instead?
"We are doing EPEL4 and if you look for a SRPM to take as base besides looking at the FC-3 branch please also take a look at those from http://centos.karan.org/, as those packages are known to work for EL4 and tested there. "
CU thl
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
Is this inaccurate/old?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
How is it considered accurate when there are hundreds of packages in the EL 4 branch?
Rahul
On 01.08.2007 15:50, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
Is this inaccurate/old?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
How is it considered accurate when there are hundreds of packages in the EL 4 branch?
Seems you read something totally different into it then I do. Anyway, the stuff got borked over time. I added the below to the FAQ and removed the other stuff.
=== Should I take old or up2date software as a base for EPEL4? ===
The packages from Fedora Core and Extras 3 are a good staring base for EPEL 4. The packages from Fedora Extras 3 were even rebuild for EL4 already and shipped by and external repo -- consider to look there for additional fixes before building your package for EPEL4.
CU thl
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 06:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
Is this inaccurate/old?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
D'oh! That wasn't what I meant to point to, but it looks like you removed the part that confused me. You did remove it, right? The changelog says, "move a part to the faq that belongs there". But this content is old, right? I see you didn't put it into the FAQ.
- === What about EPEL for RHEL 4? === - - We start EPEL two years after RHEL4 started getting shipped. Pushing - out packages today that were up2date two years ago might look a bit - odd and will be hard to realize -- what version to choose exactly? So - we simply take a slightly different route for EPEL4 and suggest our - maintainers to consider using the stuff from http://centos.karan.org/ - (which are based on Fedora Extras 3) as base for packages in EPEL4 -- - that stuff is known to work and tested, so is a good base for the - EPEL4 branch. Sure, the outcome would have looked a bit different than - where we might have landed if we would have started EPEL two years - ago, but well, we start now. ;-) -
Karsten Wade wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 06:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
Is this inaccurate/old?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
D'oh! That wasn't what I meant to point to, but it looks like you removed the part that confused me. You did remove it, right? The changelog says, "move a part to the faq that belongs there". But this content is old, right? I see you didn't put it into the FAQ.
It is there in the FAQ now. Check again.
Rahul
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Karsten Wade wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 06:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
Is this inaccurate/old?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
D'oh! That wasn't what I meant to point to, but it looks like you removed the part that confused me. You did remove it, right? The changelog says, "move a part to the faq that belongs there". But this content is old, right? I see you didn't put it into the FAQ.
It is there in the FAQ now. Check again.
OK, I see the revised form. I read the original, and it made it sound like, "We aren't doing EPEL 4, use karan.centos.org instead." That is, the wording was confusing, and Thorsten cleaned it up, so good.
- Karsten
On 7/31/07, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
Is this inaccurate/old?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-8d21749b79a314...
It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
If so, what do we want to say instead?
"We are doing EPEL4 and if you look for a SRPM to take as base besides looking at the FC-3 branch please also take a look at those from http://centos.karan.org/, as those packages are known to work for EL4 and tested there. "
What about 3 and 2 :)?
[As I have to take a bunch of 5 stuff and recompile it on 2 because the 3rd party software runs on 2 but wants newer stuff... whee.]
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Karsten Wade -
Rahul Sundaram -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Thorsten Leemhuis