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.)
(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.
Ping? Chris, please feel free to take over for EPEL.
No longer needed at $work :)