On 25 August 2016 at 12:49, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24 August 2016 at 23:59, Dave Johansen <davejohansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I agree that how to handle SCLs can get really mess really fast, but a lot >> of projects are jumping on the "modern C++" bandwagon and allows devtoolset >> is low risk, easy to do and enables a lot of packages to be built with EPEL >> that otherwise wouldn't be. >> >> Basically, I think that figuring out how to handle SCLs is a long term issue >> that will take some serious work, but coming up with some simple policies >> that allow it to be used in EPEL is something that should be well within the >> realm of the possible. > > History and experience has taught us that every time we do that it > comes back and bites us big time. Mainly because the simple policies > start getting revised and rewritten or violated as soon as the second > package gets put in... and in fixing that you break the first one.. > and the people who used it. This is ok in Fedora but in EPEL you end > up spending a lot of time fixing people who aren't expecting breakage. I hit send too soon as what is the exact policy proposal you are wanting. > > > -- > Stephen J Smoogen. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
