On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 02:13:22PM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > We propose adding: > > In EPEL 8 or later, it is permitted to have module streams which contain > packages with alternate versions to those provided in RHEL. These packages > may be newer, built with different options, or even older to serve > compatibility needs. These MUST NOT be the default stream -- in every > case, explicit user action must be required to opt in to these > versions. If the > RHEL package is in a RHEL module, then the EPEL module must have the same > name as the RHEL module. Any exceptions to the module name must be > approved by the EPEL Steering Committee. > That's a reasonable proposal. I can only see a small ambiguity regarding build-only packages that are filtered out of the module. I believe the rule about the module names should not apply for these filtered packages. But that leads me to a question about -devel modules. RHEL delivers some -devel modules in a CRB repository. These -devel modules consists of the filtered packages. Is EPEL going to mimic these -devel modules, or not? -- Petr
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
