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)
On Oct 26, 2009 10:19 PM, "Jeffrey Ollie" jeff@ocjtech.us wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Michael Stahnke mastahnke@gmail.com wrote: > After some discussi... I personally would say yes. While scripts may break, the repositories will be fine.
-- Jeff Ollie
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat...
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Adam Miller maxamillion@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?
stahnma
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Michael Stahnke mastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Adam Miller maxamillion@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.
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:07:27 -0600 Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Michael Stahnke mastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Adam Miller maxamillion@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:
- 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.
Should be at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_incompatible_upgrades_policy
Discussion at:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-10-02/fedora-meeting.20...
kevin
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:08:47AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:07:27 -0600 Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
And yes this needs to be written up but crap the whole EPEL wiki needs a rewrite.
Should be at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_incompatible_upgrades_policy
Should the draft notice be removed from this page?
-Toshio
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Michael Stahnke mastahnke@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Adam Miller maxamillion@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:
- 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.
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org