On 26 August 2016 at 06:00, Daniel Letai <dani@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 08/25/2016 11:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Perhaps you could explain exactly what you want to propose here again? > Just epel6? or 7 as well? Do you have co-maintainers in case you get > busy, etc? > > I propose adding several gnu packages (namely gcc, binutils and gdb) with > versions following those supplied by fedora, specifically for epel6, but > possibly for epel7 if requested. > > This could hold a pattern such as /opt/gnu/[gcc|binutils|gdb]/<version>/ to > allow several version to co-exist. > I don't have any co-maintainers, but I mainly get busy in my day job, which > happens to be the reason I maintain those packages. > OK there were multiple reasons there were reservations for this: 1) /opt/gnu (and many other /opt/*) names are already in use by many site admistrators. Putting our packages in there and over-writing locally compiled apps is going to cause problems. [Remember rpm will overwrite /opt/gnu/gcc/5.0/bin/gcc if it wasn't in the rpm db before hand without any report of a conflict.] 2) What you are proposing is a completely new way of packaging software from how Fedora or EPEL has done it before. That means it needs a fuller proposal and reasoning than a single email. The SCL process took years of work with many iterations because various people found many valid problems that needed addressing. [There were also many useless nitpicks but that seems to be part and process of open source] Neither of the above is a "no". It is a "you need to do a lot of groundwork before it is going to happen in any form." -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
