On 21.01.2008 19:33, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:59:45 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 21.01.2008 16:30, Joel Andres Granados wrote:
>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:03:06 +0100, Joel Andres Granados wrote:
>>>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>>> Don't know what to make of it. So I assume from "You cannot
downgrade a package
>>>> without asking the epel-signers to delete a newer package", that the
>>>> is to delete the newer package. right?
>>> Mail the repo admins in accordance with the EPEL FAQ in the Wiki and
>>> request removal of the 1.1.6 package. (it is enough to delete the src.rpm
>>> and let repoprune kill the various binaries)
>> ok. sent mail to EPEL signers group. :)
> Hmmm. Is it wise to remove it? If I understood the discussion correctly
> then users that already have the currently newest version of
> python-imaging in EPEL4 installed will never get a update should there
> ever be released one with a EVRN lower then (none):1.1.6-3.el4.
But is the newer package in EPEL4 maintained actively? In CVS it is
back at 1.1.4 already. Will any bug-fix/security-fix released for RHEL4
be ported to the >1.1.6 pkg in EPEL4? If that doesn't happen, keeping
the 1.1.6 brown paper-bag in the repo makes no sense.
Sure, it would need to be discussed which spec file we'd continue to
> On the other hand: we cannot increase the epoch only in EPEL4
> then the upgrade path to RHEL5 is broken (still/again).
> Which of the two things is worse?
The third thing. ;) Replacing a pkg from RHEL ;-P
That would only happen on update afaics.
and an attitude like
"damage is done, we can't revert it". Next time it happens with a
package, you won't revert it either?
I didn't suggest that. I actually think removing is best as well. But
doing such things should not be the decision of those that have access
to the repo alone, thus I asked for options here on the list.