On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 07:36 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 14:33 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 02:23:16PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > What I'm trying to say here is that each time we want to > > > implement > > > some feature in Fedora, we either need to have some replacement > > > in > > > EPEL or diverge Fedora branches from EPEL branches. Having > > > replacement is not always possible, especially if we start > > > utilizing > > > new (actually 8 years old) features of RPM. > > > > I'd really like to see us tend towards coming up with macros that > > provide elegant fallbacks on EPEL. (The %license macro is a good > > example.) > > There is no fallback for rich dependencies. There is no fallback for > filetriggers. > > > I get the frustration with older stuff holding us back, but we > > really > > have a _lot_ of users who get value from doing so. > > https://twitter.com/mattdm/status/936243506355621888 > > I'm definitely not against supporting EPEL, but right now it is > hurting me that > much that I don't do that. AWS (Amazon web services) technologies are based on Centos 6 and 7 , the recente announced "AWS Cloud9 a cloud IDE for writing, running, and debugging code" is running in a Centos 6 ! and use epel repos ! maybe that is why I more motivate to packaging for EPEL 6 . TL;DR; Can't we fix things on EPEL, to speed up Fedora devel ? another story that is bugging me is python2 packages for example [1] if we want call it python2-foo , so we have to guarantee that rule also applies on RHEL(s) / Centos . [1] %if 0%{?fedora} BuildRequires: python2-six %else BuildRequires: python-six %endif https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wammu/blob/master/f/wammu.spec#_18 -- Sérgio M. B. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
