On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 02:15:19PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:29 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:36 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > My main job is working with Fedora Infrastructure, and we are trying to work out how to handle: > > > > > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8558 > > > > > > The problem is that various tools filter what packages can be branched into Fedora see that libssh2 was in a module that RHEL shipped in 8.0 but it is no longer in the release with 8.1. > > > > > > Do we need to make libssh2 a module? > > > Should we allow libssh2 be branched as a 'bare' package in EPEL proper? > > > Other? > > > > > > > Since libssh2 is being dropped from RHEL, I think we should just > > permit it as a regular package in EPEL proper. That maximizes its > > usefulness to everyone. > > > > I second that. > I don't think it matters if it was in a module or not. If it is no > longer in RHEL8, then it should be permitted as a regular EPEL8 > package. I agree, but... what about packages that are modules. What does epel promise not to overlap with? Just bare rpms? Any rpm in any modules also? ie, would it have been ok to make a normal rpm of libssh2 before when it was in a module? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
