On 10.12.2007 18:40, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 09:22 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> This weekend I took a closer look at our wishlist and added a bunch of
>> (IMHO) popular Fedora packages still missing in EPEL. Then I wrote a
>> little script that emailed all the owners and co-maintainers asking them
>> for their EPEL plans regarding the package in question; to track that I
>> added a status column in the wishlist. See:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList
>> I plan do to that again now and then in the future -- so if you want to
>> see a package in EPEL just add it to the wishlist with the status
>> "unknown" -- then my script (when I run it) will send a mail to the
>> maintainer.
> It would be really useful if the wishlist also stated who requested it
> with a very brief reason - two of my packages (ruby-activesupport and
> ruby-activerecord) are on that list.

It might be in the wiki history somewhere.

/me looks

There is is, change from TillMaas:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList?action=diff&rev2=19&rev1=18

But tracking that informations (in another column of the table) just
makes everything harder and more complicated. I'd like to avoid that.

> I don't really want to put them into EPEL; I'd much rather put all of
> the rails gems in there, (rubygem-rails and dependencies), but I'd like
> to have a quick chat with whoever wants those packages to make sure that
> that is what they need.

Well, I think the maintainer should be in a good position to judge
what's the best way forward in situations like that. But if there are
doubts (like in this case) I'd say asking on the list (where lots of
people (often including the requester) are around to share their
opinion) is the better solution than asking just the person that did the
request.

CU
knurd

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Dec 11, 2007 12:02 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@leemhuis.info> wrote:
>
> On 11.12.2007 02:37, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 2007 4:34 PM, Michael Stahnke <mastahnke@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A couple of my php packages do. I think php-Phlickr is one. (might
> >> be the only one off hand).
> > right, and your packages should not have been built for EPEL-5 because
> > this dir doesnt exist yet. We need that bug fixed and closed.
>
> Isn't there a workaround we could use until the bug in question gets
> fixed? I suppose it might take a while until that happens...

Yea, we could just not use /usr/share/php and just use /usr/share
instead. Then when the bug gets fixed, everyone using EPEL would have
to update all their applications to use /usr/share/php.

It is infinitely more logical to fix the bug *now* instead of doing a
work-around for it. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no
reason whatsoever to just add the directory because it changes nothing
in the current environment. If we go ahead and put in work arounds
for it first, then fix the bug, this will make the situation much
worse because it will mean everyone who uses these packages will have
to fix their code once the proper directory is in place.

There is no reason to not add the directory. The person who made the
decision to not fix the bug in EPEL 5.0 and to delay it for 5.1 was
plain and simply wrong.

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Dec 11, 2007 5:16 PM, Christopher Stone <chris.stone@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no
> reason whatsoever to just add the directory because it changes nothing
> in the current environment.

This should say, there is no reason to *not* add the directory.

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Mo Dezember 10 2007, David Lutterkort wrote:

> It would be really useful if the wishlist also stated who requested it
> with a very brief reason - two of my packages (ruby-activesupport and
> ruby-activerecord) are on that list.
>
> I don't really want to put them into EPEL; I'd much rather put all of
> the rails gems in there, (rubygem-rails and dependencies), but I'd like
> to have a quick chat with whoever wants those packages to make sure that
> that is what they need.

I requestet these packages. I use them with a ruby camping[1] application,
which is a framework like rails, but much more simplier. Therefore I would
not need rubygem-rails.

Regards,
Till

[1] http://camping.rubyforge.org/files/README.html
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Mo Dezember 10 2007, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> There are a few packages on the wishlist where the Fedora owner does no
>
> participate in EPEL. And takers for them? Here's the list:

> > || mmv || Move/copy/append/link multiple files ||

I will take mmv as soon as I have the time for it.

Regards,
Till
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:58 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I requestet these packages. I use them with a ruby camping[1] application,
> which is a framework like rails, but much more simplier. Therefore I would
> not need rubygem-rails.

But if it were rubygem-activerecord and rubygem-activesupport, that
would be ok, too ? I'd rather include the rubygems than the straightup
packages.

David


_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Mi Dezember 12 2007, David Lutterkort wrote:

> But if it were rubygem-activerecord and rubygem-activesupport, that
> would be ok, too ? I'd rather include the rubygems than the straightup
> packages.

I do not really know, does

| require 'active_record'

work, when only rubygem-acvtiverecord is installed, but not ruby-activerecord?
Then I guess it would be ok, too. :-)

Regards,
Till
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list