On 14.12.2013 03:56, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
<tchollingswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:36:48 -0700
We might go with epel7. The reason is that some people seem to have
confusion about the branches being 'elN'. "Oh, this is rhel6" No, it's
epel6, not rhel.
Overall pretty minor either way.
Yeah, I have some shell functions and little scripts that would have
to be adjusted, but they'd need to be adjusted to {6,7} anyway, so
whatever.
My preference is for "el7", since it's shorter to type :)
My preference is also "el7", because we have also a "Packager" and
"Vendor" tag to declare these packages as Fedora EPEL (and not rhel)
packages.
That's also an interesting thing when rebuilding CentOS packages to
match the upstream dist tag.
Best regards,
Morten
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
