On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Kevin Fenzi<[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:28:35 -0500 (CDT) > Mike McGrath <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Should we have a stronger effort to replace older RHEL packages if we >> put them in their own namespace and don't conflict? > > Well, how much interest is there in this? > How many packages would we have? > > Can the interesting ones that people want really be made to not > conflict with the base RHEL versions? > > This would be a totally seperate 'epel-bleeding' or > 'epel-newer-versions' repo?
epel-sid (if it compiles, ship it!) The issues are how to deal with this cleanly (if that is possible). I know that there are people who need newer versions of postgres, mysql etc just to get apps working.. but they also run into the "we need a newer python" which uhm would be very interesting to try and deal with. >> This is sort of a nuanced problem since RHEL5 doesn't feel nearly as -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
