Re: Removing Publican and fop from EPEL5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:38:43PM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Quoting Eric H. Christensen (2012-12-10 22:51:11)
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > The last week or so has seen a couple of patches going into fop in the Fedora repositories.  I recently became a co-maintainer of fop in EPEL5 and was trying to bring fop into current there.  Unfortunately there are many dependency failures there that it's going to be a lot of work to bring it up to where we need it.  The actual need, from my point of view, is to get Publican working properly.  fop provides the engine for creating PDFs in Publican and is a necessary function for the Fedora Docs project.  That said, the current version of Publican in EPEL5 is very old and outdated.  Near current version of Publican is already in EPEL6 and I believe fop is in RHEL6 repositories.
> > 
> > I say all that to ask this:  Is anyone currently using fop or Publican in EPEL5 or can we get rid of those bits?
> > 
> > I have no problem working to bring fop upto speed in EPEL5 if someone needs it but I'd hate to do all the work if no one is using it.
> 
> Regardless of fop being out of date in EPEL I believe EPEL guidelines[1] strongly
> discourage big updates from flowing in. Quoting:
> 
>    The packages in the repository should, if possible, be maintained in similar
>    ways to the Enterprise Packages they were built against. In other words: have
>    a mostly stable set of packages that normally to not change at all and only
>    changes if there are good reasons for it -- so no "hey, there is a new
>    version, it builds, let's ship it" mentality. 
> 
> So I'd say: don't rebase fop at all. It's against the guidelines in the first
> place
> 
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Package_maintenance_and_update_policy

This is a good point.  Unfortunately this would lead to the only option being to remove fop and Publican from EPEL5 because fop is broken... badly.

If no one needs it then I'll just retire it.

- -- Eric

- --------------------------------------------------
Eric H Christensen        eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Sparks"                  sparks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    .... . .-.. .-.. ---  .-- --- .-. .-.. -..
097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2  E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1
- --------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=TMQQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
docs mailing list
docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Red Hat 9]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux