On 07. 07. 20 14:08, Tomas Orsava wrote:
On 6/30/20 9:10 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 30. 06. 20 21:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> I don't think a package-review is needed? It would just be unretiring
>> the fedora branches of an existing package?
>
> Technically, the package is "retired for 8+ weeks" on Fedora. Hence a new
> review request.
>
>> That said, I am -1 on the idea.
>>
>> You have no idea how many people try to install epel packages on fedora.
>> We had to explicitly add a Conflicts to try and reduce this, and that
>> was with them in another repo entirely!
>>
>> I fear if we do this more people will start installing stuff from epel
>> on fedora and cause a lot of breakage.
>
> I understand the concern, but am not considering it a blocker for this,
> especially since people will find a way to download the epel packages anyway.
> This does not allow `dnf install epel-release` on Fedora neither are the repos
> enabled. The amount of work to actually use this package to install epel
> packages on Fedora is more or less the same as downloading the packages from
> Koji or EPEL mirrors.
+1 from me. People will always do weird things, if they want rope, I say let
them have it.
But that shouldn't stop us from making life easier for packagers. I myself would
use this.
The discussion kinda stopped. I don't want to force the package in, but I'd like
to have some resolution. Is there a better way to achieve the results with less
risk?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok