| Summary: | Request update to latest version for EPEL7 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Lamar Owen <lowen> |
| Component: | gnuradio | Assignee: | Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | epel7 | CC: | jskarvad, mmahut |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-04-26 13:55:51 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Lamar Owen
2016-04-22 20:56:30 UTC
EPEL policy is to have stable packages with mininum updates, not to have the latest versions: > The packages in the repository should, if possible, be maintained in similar > ways to the Enterprise Packages they were built against. In other words: have a > mostly stable set of packages that normally does not change at all and only > changes if there are good reasons for changes. This is the spirit of a stable > enterprise environment. > > The changes that cant be avoided get routed into different release trees. Only > updates that fix important bugs (say: data-corruption, security problems, > really annoying bugs) go to a testing branch for a short time period and then > are pushed to the stable branch; those people that sign and push the EPEL > packages to the public repo will skim over the list of updated packages for the > stable repo to make sure that sure the goal "only important updates for the > stable branch" is fulfilled. I don't think this qualifies as 'changes that cant be avoided'. (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #1) > EPEL policy is to have stable packages with mininum updates, not to have the > latest versions: > > > The packages in the repository should, if possible, be maintained in similar > > ways to the Enterprise Packages they were built against. In other words: have a > > mostly stable set of packages that normally does not change at all and only > > changes if there are good reasons for changes. This is the spirit of a stable > > enterprise environment. > > > > The changes that cant be avoided get routed into different release trees. Only > > updates that fix important bugs (say: data-corruption, security problems, > > really annoying bugs) go to a testing branch for a short time period and then > > are pushed to the stable branch; those people that sign and push the EPEL > > packages to the public repo will skim over the list of updated packages for the > > stable repo to make sure that sure the goal "only important updates for the > > stable branch" is fulfilled. > > I don't think this qualifies as 'changes that cant be avoided'. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy First, thanks for maintaining the packages. Second, thanks for the pointer to the policy. I will research to see for myself if the update to the newer version qualifies (at least for me) as 'can't be avoided' (and I'll look at other EPEL packages to see if similar changes to those packages have been classified as 'can't be avoided') and will come back with more information on a new RFE. I can of course always maintain my own packages..... For now I'll close this bug. Program note: EPEL7 now has GR 3.7.11 in it; thanks guys to finally fixing this! |