On 07. 07. 20 14:08, Tomas Orsava wrote:
On 6/30/20 9:10 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 06. 20 21:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I don't think a package-review is needed? It would just be unretiring
the fedora branches of an existing package?
Technically, the package is "retired for 8+ weeks" on Fedora. Hence a new
review request.
That said, I am -1 on the idea.
You have no idea how many people try to install epel packages on fedora.
We had to explicitly add a Conflicts to try and reduce this, and that
was with them in another repo entirely!
I fear if we do this more people will start installing stuff from epel
on fedora and cause a lot of breakage.
I understand the concern, but am not considering it a blocker for this,
especially since people will find a way to download the epel packages anyway.
This does not allow `dnf install epel-release` on Fedora neither are the repos
enabled. The amount of work to actually use this package to install epel
packages on Fedora is more or less the same as downloading the packages from
Koji or EPEL mirrors.
+1 from me. People will always do weird things, if they want rope, I say let
them have it.
But that shouldn't stop us from making life easier for packagers. I myself would
use this.
The discussion kinda stopped. I don't want to force the package in, but I'd like
to have some resolution. Is there a better way to achieve the results with less
risk?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
