El jue, 18-01-2018 a las 14:33 -0500, Matthew Miller escribió: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:09:26PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Given that Python 2 is going EOL in about two years, I don't > > > think we > > > want it in EPEL proper. If we do provide it, it should be in a > > > module. > > > > You're referring to EPEL > 7, right? > > For Python, yes. > > > Also, that last part is kind of > > a leap in assumption. Perhaps it's because I'm not up to speed on > > EPEL plans, but do we have timelines for when/if modules will be > > created for and available for EPEL? > It's the plan of record that by default, all modules will be built > across all available buildroots. I'm not sure if that means EPEL7 > will > be an available option for technical reasons, but I hope so. This > will > possibly require a modular-capable DNF in EPEL proper or in a side- > repo > of some sort -- TBD. But if that works, we'll start having modular > content for EL right along with the F28 release. If this is something we want to do in that timeline things need to be getting put in place now. We should have a discssion about what we would like, what timelines we would do it on, and how it would all look and work. The DNF and RPM teams probably need to chime in to let us know what is practical. in order to have it in the F28 timeline we need to get it enabled in the next 6-8 weeks. > If not, it'll have to wait for the "higher than 7" RHEL release, but > should be able to enable module building for that pretty quickly once > the target OS is available. What EPEL greater than 7 looks like will be a discussion to be had when there is something to build against relased publicly, until we see what the base looks like we can not determine what EPEL will look like. > I know that many of us Fedora packagers stay away from EPEL, but at > least for me, that's largely because I'm not confident about > committing > to the long lifecycle, because to keep packages stable I'd have to > diverge from Fedora, and because rpm abilities lag so much. This is a big issue, it is a commitment, people have thier own ideas on what stable and supported in EPEL means. > With modules, the first two concerns are handled (because I can > maintain my modules with whatever commitments I feel comfortable > with, > even with an EL target). And at least initially the RPM/DNF > functionality > should be on par with modern Fedora. agreed. Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
