(getting far afield of bugzilla)
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg(a)gmail.com) said:
>If I'm understanding you, you're claiming it *should*
have nothing to do
>with Fedora. However, it clearly does currently - it was started as a
>Fedora project in 2007. It uses the Fedora infrastructure *intentionally*
>as an easy way to share resources, share packaging information, share
>accounts for packagers, share certain policies, etc.
I can see how and why it had been started as Fedora project for and
at the convenience of RH ( and it's clones ) as opposed to actually
get the EPEL maintainers to maintain that same component for a
longer period of time in Fedora as an part of an LTS release.
I don't recall any discussions of EPEL being used as this sort of trojan
to prevent a Fedora LTS, but it's possible I missed something.
Is your suggestion that instead of building packages to help uesrs who
wanted software available for *EL that Fedora should have told those users
that they should be helping us make a Fedora LTS instead, I guess that's an
option, but it is somewhat hostile to our downstream distributions, and
actually makes the individual packager work harder.
anyway with regards to short hostnames ) I can understand why that
you dont see a compallance in the argument I'm making but that wont
change the fact that the spec file are being cluttered for epel or
rhel compatibility, something those maintainers should be keep in a
separated branch away from Fedora.
The packagers use those *because* it makes their jobs easier when they
want a package to be buildable for both EL5, EL6, and various Fedoras.
Why would the packagers want to make their lives harder for something
that isn't exposed in any way to make the user's lives better?
There's certainly arguments about simplifying the packaging, but at a
certain point you just start looking about how to rip out rpmbuild and spec
files entirely in favor of something better.