Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 10.11.2008 21:57, Patrice Dumas wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:48:13PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> For ant I'm not that sure if packaging a newer version is wise or >>> not, as I'm not familiar enough with it. But I tend to say "that way >>> lie dragons", as it's hard to draw the line where to stop with it >>> -- otherwise we soon get request to include openoffice3 or kde4 in >>> EPEL... >> >> I don't view it as an issue, as long as * the upgrade path is right, >> that is the EPEL package is updated by the corresponding RHEL/EPEL >> package in the next RHEL/EPEL release, which implies some >> coordination with RHEL/EPEL maintainers. > > Well, such coordination in the EPEL past afaics often didn't work that > well (just like it didn't in the Extras days when Extras maintainers had > to deal with maintainers from Fedora Core). > >> * the packages are stable enough for inclusing in EPEL, which is not >> the case for the 2 you mentionned, in my opinion, but is certainly >> so for ant17. > > Well, the 2 I mentioned were (obviously) extreme examples. But as I > said: where draw the line/where stop? People likely have good reasons > for hundred other packages that are basically new versions of software > that is already included in RHEL. I fear that the whole things could get > quite messy over time.
the newer version (and-1.7) here means a 2 years old version... -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
