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
solution
>>> 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.
On the other hand: we cannot increase the epoch only in EPEL4
because
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 and an attitude like
"damage is done, we can't revert it". Next time it happens with a different
package, you won't revert it either?