On 16.05.2007 19:54, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 5/16/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
> On 15.05.2007 23:13, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> The early majority wants stability with updates occuring at known
>> times. They want technology refreshes, but want a seal of approval of
>> some sort that the organization is steady, has standards, or has a
>> company that will stand behind it. They also want the same thing as
>> close to possible on as many of their systems (as they will have
>> RHEL-3,4, and 5 deployed as servers that they want to add stuff to).
> Those are IMHO round about one of the targets for EPEL -- even if there
> is no company behind EPEL, they get stuff missing in RHEL easily with EPEL.
I thought about this some more last night. Would the EPEL repository
be better suited with an 'alternate' tree structure?
X.old Last release
The plan is to leave all the old repos for X.X releases around; see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-a98bce5283e...
X.stable Current release
Sure
X..testing Stuff might be pushed to current release
Under discussion -- we need to look if that's possible with bodhi.
X.rawhide Stuff that might go into testing for next release.
Hmm, I'd prefer to call it
X.testing
X.testing-stable
or something like that.
X.Y/SRPMS
X.Y/<arch>
with symbolic links to show the tree structure.
4.4 -> 4.old
4.5 -> 4.stable
4.6 -> 4.testing
4.7 -> 4.rawhide
Might be doable.
CU
thl