-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an > disgrace to the community for them not doing so. > That's something else that this policy could potentially addresses, frankly. The reason our infrastructure team doesn't use Fedora is because upgrading critical infrastructure every six months is simply infeasible. If we adopt this plan where we have a fairly solid core, then we could build essentially a Fedora Infra SIG that could then have a custom server build for maintaining the build infrastructure and hosting pieces. Right now, Fedora is not the right platform for that, but maybe we could identify that as one of the goals of this project. Would you be interested in participating in that SIG and help design it? <snip> > Just keep that documentation out of our wiki ( or in epel's own > under epels own domain or lock tide within red hat docs ) since > that has nothing to do with Fedora and having it there only > confuses Fedora packagers > There are arguments to be made for keeping EPEL's documentation separate, sure. But the simple fact is that in most cases, they differ by less than 1% and it's more economical to keep them both up to date if they're just the same page with effectively an #ifdef. As for cruft in the spec files, why not bring a proposal to the FPC to update the packaging guidelines stating that Fedora spec files must not contain RHEL/EPEL macros? Then the git branches would be maintained separately and the spec files might be more easily read. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlHtWQAACgkQeiVVYja6o6NvCACgnT/bL22QnDMLlyMHSFLwrVw7 QpwAnA6wpLj1EX5MV3HkcauT4Sz98opJ =UpOI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
