Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237197
Summary: perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches? Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: perl-File-Slurp AssignedTo: rc040203@freenet.de ReportedBy: cweyl@alumni.drew.edu QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
It would be useful to me to have this package under RHEL4 and 5. Any chance I can prevail upon you to build for those distros, as well?
(perl-File-Slurp's review is bug 167282.)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237197
------- Additional Comments From rc040203@freenet.de 2007-04-20 00:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #0)
It would be useful to me to have this package under RHEL4 and 5. Any chance I can prevail upon you to build for those distros, as well?
(perl-File-Slurp's review is bug 167282.)
Short answer: No, I do not support EPEL.
Longer answer: I am not supporting EPEL. Primarily, because I am not using EPEL.
More generally,
* technically, I do not feel able to support RHEL, because of the additional technical constraints EPEL imposes (ABIs, longevity etc). Additionally, I think, EPEL contradicts the objectives of RHEL (stability, longevity).
* politically,
1. I refuse to provide a non-free commercial distribution (such as RHEL) to make it match user-demands better. It means nothing else but the vendor (RH) not meeting these user's demands. IMO, people wanting to use Fedora packages on RHEL should feel encouraged to switching distros, e.g. to Fedora.
2. I consider Fedora EPEL to be undermining Fedora's objectives. It causes users not to use Fedora but to pay _RH_ for their commercial base-distro. More radically formulated: EPEL helps RH to outsource development resources, but doesn't help Fedora.
In a nutshell: I consider EPEL to be RH's business, not the communities.
I see 3 alternatives:
1. You take over perl-File-Slurp for all of Fedora and EPEL. 2. You maintain it for EPEL and I do so for Fedora. 3. This package doesn't make it into EPEL.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=237197
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(cweyl@alumni.drew. | |edu)
------- Additional Comments From rc040203@freenet.de 2007-11-28 23:43 EST ------- Ping?
Chris, please feel free to take over for EPEL.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: perl-File-Slurp: EL-4, EL-5 branches?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=237197
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(cweyl@alumni.drew.| |edu) |
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2007-11-30 14:53 EST ------- No longer needed at $work :)
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org