On 07.03.2007 07:52, Greg Swallow wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 07.03.2007 07:03, Greg Swallow wrote:
>> [...]
>> But I was wondering if there is room in the plans for a
>> "EPEL-unstable" repository (or something like that), which is just an
>> automatic rebuild of Fedora Extras 6 packages. For instance I need
>> ~15 php-pear-??? rpms for EL5 that I just rebuilt from the Fedora
>> Extras 6 sources - no modifications to the spec files needed.
> My 2 cent: It would IMHO make a lot more sense to have a second repo
> that replaces stuff from the base or installs newer versions of gtk2
> in parallel to the one from the base; that would allow to ship newer
> version of other programs that depend on newer system library, too.
> But I'd say EPEL should focus on bringing up the main repo that
> doesn't replace stuff now before thinking about thinks like that. And
> the Fedora project is probably not the best place for this effort, too
> -- but I'm optimistic that there will soon be another project where
> this will be fitting in (more news to come, just be a bit patient for
> some weeks).
I wasn't suggesting replacing stuff in the base at all,
I know.
I just thought
having more packages from Extras (all that will just rebuild without
changes) available right away for EL5 would be nice, whether it is
sponsored by Fedora or a 3rd party.
Ohh, okay, then I got your wrong (I thought you wanted to constantly and
automatically rebuild FE6 for EPEL5).
My idea is to have most of Fedora Extras 6 packages available for EPEL5
soon. But it's not a automatic rebuild -- remember, someone has to
maintain the stuff for quite some time, so we'll only build packages
that have EPEL-maintainers. But I'm optimistic that with this way and a
bit of co-maintainership we should be able to have most of FE6 available
in EPEL5 soon.
CU
thl