On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Michael Stahnke
<mastahnke(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Adam Miller <maxamillion(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> As per the new EPEL policy that was voted on recently, the push of that
>> update is not allowed unless there is a justification due to security
>> vulnerability.
>>
>> -Adam (From Android)
>
> Where was this vote? I know I missed a couple of EPEL meetings, was it recently?
It was recent. The basics are:
1) Updates/upgrades are ok as long as they do not break compatibility
or require manual intervention to get working.
2) If an update/upgrade will break the release, the package is
affected by a security problem then an update is allowed if it is
announced and I think, gets a month of testing in epel-testing.
3) Otherwise either a clean fix needs to be made or the package is not
to be upgraded.
And yes this needs to be written up but crap the whole EPEL wiki needs
a rewrite.
From IRC yesterday:
Oct 27 12:41:03 <tmz> smooge: BTW, I'm not on the epel-devel list,
but as far as a potential git update is concerned, it's trivial for us
to build it with gitexecdir=%{_bindir} so that the command locations
don't change.
Oct 27 12:41:23 <smooge> ok that would make things a lot nicer
Oct 27 12:41:41 <tmz> That'd be my preference if I was updating it
in EPEL, as the change is a bit dramatic to make otherwise.
Oct 27 12:42:13 <tmz> My only concern with it is that it makes
git-1.6.5 on EL differ from 1.6.5 on Fedora.
Oct 27 12:42:44 <tmz> But if it allows an actual supported git in
EPEL, that'd be worth it I think.
Oct 27 12:43:30 <tmz> If it would help, I can join epel-devel and
chime in. But I do try to avoid more mailing lists if I can. ;)
If this will fix things without a script or such lets just have this
be the difference between Fedora and EPEL specs.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning