https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Friedrich from comment #9) > While the transition/upgrade from 1.x to 2.x may not be the easiest > (although we're trying very hard), they can run side by side and won't harm > each other. Having both packages installed won't hurt the system, they run > happily on my laptop every day during development. EPEL packages shouldn't be bumped from 1.x series to 2.x series, once it gets into EPEL, nothing should be changed with the major version. For epel7, since it's not ready, we can bump to anuthing you want, so if we want to ship this package: 1. Create a package "icinga", with 2.x version, and then create a package icinga1, with 1.x version. 2. Create "icinga" only with 2.x, seems objected by some people 3. My opinion: create "icinga" only, but different version in different branch. Fedora ships 2.x, EPEL6 ships 1.x, EPEL7 ships 2.x. But it's still not a perfect idea IMO. :) 4. Your opinion here. > Once Icinga (Web) 2.x are ready for their final releases (hopefully Q2 but > never say never), packages and review requests should be pushed seperately > imho. If you want to testdrive Icinga 2 RPMs - Snapshot SRPMs are available > here http://packages.icinga.org/epel/6/snapshot/src/ Which version is better, and can receive updates in the next 10 years? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review