On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion@cora.nwra.com> wrote:
On 05/15/2015 10:57 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion@cora.nwra.com
<mailto:orion@cora.nwra.com>> wrote:

    On 04/21/2015 08:48 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:

        On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Orion Poplawski
        <orion@cora.nwra.com <mailto:orion@cora.nwra.com>
        <mailto:orion@cora.nwra.com <mailto:orion@cora.nwra.com>>> wrote:

             On 04/20/2015 09:32 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:

                 I just noticed that the version of cmake that comes
        with RHEL 6 is
                 currently 2.8.12.2 and the EPEL has a cmake28 package
        that is at
                 version
                 2.8.11.2. I believe that RHEL 6 originally shipped with
        cmake
                 2.6 and
                 updated in a later point release, but I have two questions:
                 1) Is the cmake28 a duplicate and need to be removed?


             Yes.


        Ok. Is this already being worked on? Or does a bugzilla need to be
        created for it?


    A quick search:
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=%3Acmake28&list_id=3417355

    turns up: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159351

    There is some question as to whether or not it is worth the pain to
    retire.  I suppose you could also consider it pulling things away
    from EPEL users.  If it is kept, it probably should be updated at least.


Would it be possible to create a Bugzilla and request that a virtual
provide for cmake28 be added to the cmake package in RHEL? I believe
that would allow the package in EPEL to be retired without requiring
changes to existing .spec files. I'm guessing that a cmake28 symlink
might be needed as well, but it still seems possible and a solution that
shouldn't have too much headache.

Sure, anything is possible :).   Although I don't see what the big deal about changing the EPEL packages would be.   If anything, it would just bring them back in line with the Fedora branches.

My concern would just be the added effort of maintaining both of them and it falling behind like has already happened here.