On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:25:50 +0400 Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-03-21 16:07 GMT+04:00 Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org>: > > >> It doesn't exist, it's an idea that Robyn has floated > >> semi-seriously as a way to provide a repo that moves faster than > >> EPEL. Rather than try to jam fast-moving stuff in to EPEL, the > >> idea was to do an Extra Packages for Infrastructure and Cloud > >> (EPIC) that had a different, faster-moving charter. EPIC would > >> target the *EL platform just as EPEL does. > > Faster moving rate is great indeed. But adding more than on version of > software (no matter of how many repos it takes) means only one - we > have to impose additional support requiremetns on a packagers. > > The "social contract" requiremens for EPEL "support" (which of souce > isn't a "real" support) is way too high for the average maintainer. > That's the reason I believe the entire EPEL idea was a huge mistake > and waste of time - unfortunately I failed to discuss this with other > fellow fedora members during FOSDEM Fedora.NEXT related talks. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I happen to disagree. I think EPEL has been a very big success and very helpfull for many people. It can't be everything for everyone... the expectation for it is slow and stable. If you need faster and more updatable, that should be something else (or at least another repo) with different (clear) expectations. > No matter of the current situation I'd love to discuss possible ways > to improve it. So count me in as well. Yeah, I think we can definitely always improve. kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
