On 8 January 2015 at 17:01, Dan Callaghan <dcall...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Is the EPIC proposal totally dead? It seems like that would be a nicer > and more general solution to this problem (not wanting to ship a Python > 3.x stack for 10 years). > > The EPIC proposal needs a) A formal proposal b) People who are willing to work on it. I haven't had time to do a) and while I have seen a lot of "Oh I would totally use EPIC if it was around.." I haven't gotten any "Hey that sounds like an interesting hard problem. Sign me up for some pain." > Personally I am not looking forward to maintaining more branches and/or > (sub-)packages for every python3X-*. > > I need to understand what you mean here? Even in EPIC and SCL's there would have to be some overlap and multiple branches over time due to the fact that python, ruby, java, etc all have multiple subpackages which would need to be built for multiple releases. They may not be for a long lenght of time, but the work is not going away. > -- > Dan Callaghan <dcall...@redhat.com> > Software Engineer, Hosted & Shared Services > Red Hat, Inc. > > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list > epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel > > -- Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
