Hello Alexandre! On 11.09.20 20:52, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
The rationale is that many Fedora packagers do not specifically care about EL, and with their long release cycles the maintenance burden is higher (e.g. upgrading to fix a security vulnerability might not be possible if the newer fixed version has unmet dependencies, so backporting the fix might be required). EL is more often used server side too, so the average Fedora packager is not expected to be an EL user.
I fully agree with the idea of an EPEL packaging SIG. But I would like to extend your rational: I was doing a Fedora desktop install (KDE) for some not technical affine people. After about 5 years I no more think this was a good idea, because every half year I have to make a full upgrade. So I now plan to change to CentOS (+ EPEL). IMO this is the better choice for non technicians if the installation should last for years. Is it OK to call CentOS (+ EPEL) "Fedora LTS"? ;-) But there are still some packages missing. So I started to became a Fedora packager and I am now in the process of being sponsored. I started with the simple packages "qjackctl" and "qsynth". Thank you for you effort. Best Regards Christoph (pampelmuse) _______________________________________________ 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
