On 26 August 2016 at 12:58, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.] In reading some of the FESCO tickets, we can't use /opt/gnu because we are not the GNU organization. https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s13.html We would need to use the /opt/fedora or go through the process of becoming an entity that the LANANA.org people would recognize. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
