Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 16.07.2007 15:39, Joel Andres Granados wrote:
reference : BZ#246444
I have 1 of 2 choices:
[...]
Comments greatly appreciated.
The better place for this questions is epel-devel-list (CCed and reply
to set),
thx, Ill additionally subscribe to the list. ;)
where this has been discussed already in the past days and
likely will get discussed further. It's also a topic for tomorrows EPEL
SIG meeting (20070718, #fedora-meeting, 17:00 UTC). Join us ;-)
I most likely will join you.
BTW, I'd currently prefer to take the python-imaging from RHEL, lower
the EVR (by using a "0." at the start of Release),
So if I understand you correctly you want to ship the 1.1.5 source with
a 1.1.6-0.3 versioned rpm?
IMHO, since this does not really break anything (1.1.6 being in RHEL5
Server) it would be much better
to go with the policy of having source version and rpm version
consistency than having the EPEL/el5 and RHEL5
consistency.
I also consider this being a matter of opinion as both approaches would
work in theory :)
and ship it in EPEL,
so users of EL5Server have it available as well, and users of EL5Client
or CentOS will get their normal package. Not ideal, but KISS and should
work if nobody does stupid things.
FWIW, I think that shipping the 1.1.6 version to EPEL/el5 is more KISS
than modifying the release bit.
CU
knurd
P.S.: /me wonders if mailman will eat the follow-up to
epel-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
P.P.S.:/me bets it will
I'll check this out and see if mailman did something funny.
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Joel Andres Granados
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
