2011/12/1 Lukasz Janyst <[log in to unmask]>:
> 2011/11/16 Mattias Ellert <[log in to unmask]>:
>> Regarding updating packages in EPEL, you need to consider the EPEL
>> update policy: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies
>> The 3.1 version is quite different from the 3.0 version w.r.t. binary
>> compatibility, so yo need to make a very strong case for making this
>> update in EPEL. Maybe the "non-backportable security fixes" argument can
>> be done, maybe.
>
> Well, that is a new upstream version. So the argument is that if
> the update is not done the EPEL version of xrootd will be obsolete and
> will no longer receive upstream bugfixes unless somebody is willing to
> port them.
>> When the update is done (whether only for rawhide, or for stable
>> releases too) it must be coordinated with dependent packages in the
>> distribution, and with third-party projects using the EPEL libraries
>> like EMI.
>
> No question about it. AFAIK there's also ROOT packaging that you
> are responsible for, right?
Hi Mattias,
I have had a closer look at the issue and spoken with the DPM guys.
It looks to me that the only package currently in EPEL that depends on
XRootD is ROOT and the ROOT packaging is maintained by you. There is
also an XRootD DPM plugin currently undergoing a review for inclusion,
but it still has problems:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749291
So, do you mind if we try to push the xrootd.org packaging through
the review process for inclusion into EPEL as an update to the current
3.0.x stuff that is already there?
http://xrootd.cern.ch/sw/releases/3.1.0/rpms/user_daemon/
Cheers,
Lukasz
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1
|