On 09/08/2009 10:51 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 12:28:35PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >> Should we have a stronger effort to replace older RHEL packages if we >> put them in their own namespace and don't conflict? >> >> This is sort of a nuanced problem since RHEL5 doesn't feel nearly as >> old as RHEL4 did at this point in it's release cycle. But still, >> people do want newer versions of these packages. > > I'd be in favor of something like this... would the separate namespace > by enough separation, or should there be an actual additional repo for > packages like this? > > Prior would obviously be simpler. > > Something like this for mutt (mutt15 perhaps) would be great. > We'd need to decide whether we'd be okay with Conflicts.
In Fedora repositories, we're trying to eliminate use of Conflicts. If we want to package a mutt15 package in Fedora, we rename the package, change binary locations, change directory locations, update the conf files and init scripts to use the new directories, and possibly patch source to find the new directories. Doing all this work is generally okay since there's very few packages that we'd want to parallel install older and newer versions in Fedora. Fedora is updating to the latest versions at a rapid pace and the older releases of Fedora are EOL'd before people would want to parallel install both packages. In RHEL/Centos, there's a larger window between releases and a larger window of a release being supported. Using Conflicts we'd rename the package but install to the same directories as the current postgresql. The system admin would have to choose whether to install postgresql-* from RHEL or postgresql8.3 from the EPEL repository... they couldn't have both. We'd also need to think about how we want to deal with package sets that depend on each other. For instance, if we build postgresql8.4 packages so people can stick with the postgres db that came with RHEL or use a newer version, we will need to: 1) Decide whether optional newer dependencies by the newer postgresql should be kept or we should make it more drop in (in the postgres I've built for Infrastructure, I chose not to upgrade to a newer tcl or build optional profiling packages that the current Fedora postgresql needs) 2) Decide whether to build other packages against the newer postgresql (I have built a postgresql8.3-pgpool-II package that targets my postgresql8.3, for instance). -Toshio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
