On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:25:10PM -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 05:46:15PM +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
> Andy Gospodarek schrieb:
> >Well put, Paul. Packages that mostly run standalone are appropriate
> >candidates for a rebase (like freehoo and firefox), but those that serve
> >as libraries or building blocks for other components should try to stay
> >as stable as possible from an ABI/API perspective.
> I would like to add the distinction between "server" and
> While both categories are not always disjoint, it this the distinction is
> nevertheless: Some things like Firefox, OpenOffice etc. can be updated more
> often than something like Exim, Apache, ...
That is an excellent point. Should we consider breaking EPEL into an
EPEL-Base and EPEL-Desktop? If we had separate repos it might be
I would be in favor of that and then possibly change the way we queue
something to move from testing to stable so that it can remain in
Would the same package exist potentially in either repository? I'm
just trying to think how this might effect CentOS users who don't have
the concept of Desktop/Server...
I kind of like the -unstable option myself...