On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 06:40 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.07.2007 22:19, Karsten Wade wrote:
> Is this inaccurate/old?
It's IMHO accurate, but they wording maybe could be improved.
D'oh! That wasn't what I meant to point to, but it looks like you
removed the part that confused me. You did remove it, right? The
changelog says, "move a part to the faq that belongs there". But this
content is old, right? I see you didn't put it into the FAQ.
- === What about EPEL for RHEL 4? ===
- We start EPEL two years after RHEL4 started getting shipped. Pushing
- out packages today that were up2date two years ago might look a bit
- odd and will be hard to realize -- what version to choose exactly? So
- we simply take a slightly different route for EPEL4 and suggest our
- maintainers to consider using the stuff from http://centos.karan.org/
- (which are based on Fedora Extras 3) as base for packages in EPEL4 --
- that stuff is known to work and tested, so is a good base for the
- EPEL4 branch. Sure, the outcome would have looked a bit different than
- where we might have landed if we would have started EPEL two years
- ago, but well, we start now. ;-)
Karsten Wade ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
| gpg key: AD0E0C41