On 16 February 2018 at 03:14, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> "LT" == Luya Tshimbalanga <luya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> LT> When you get a chance, would you also update the spec guideline as >> LT> well? >> >> Which spec guideline did you mean? If you were referring to the >> packaging guidelines, they have said that BuildRoot: should not be used >> since 2016: >> >> The BuildRoot: tag, Group: tag, and %clean section SHOULD NOT be used. >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections >> >> - J< > > While RHEL 5 is obsolete, that does not mean EPEL 5 is obsolete. Are > there any EPEL tools that are identical to the upstream Fedora > releases, that might still use any of htese for legacy environments? Speaking with my EPSCO hat on. EPEL-5 was End of Lifed when RHEL-5 was considered end of normal life. As such it was archived to /pub/archives/epel and koji will no longer compose builds for it. Keeping EPEL-5 in the main SRPMs is the equivalent of keeping Fedora 6 in main spec files. Even before EPEL-5 was EOL, very little of Fedora would compile out of the box and required massive amounts of %if and other hacks to even try to compile from a rawhide spec file. If someone wanted to keep compiling for EL-5 they should branch the code themselves and maintain it as such versus trying to keep the cruft in the main tree. I believe that is what arbitrary branching is for. > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
