is it possible to add ant-1.7.x to epel?
 

hi,
currently ant-1.6.5-2jpp.2 included in rhel while ant-1.7.0 in fedora.
since even 1.7.0 is almost 2 years old (1.6.5 is more then 3 years)
there are many java packages which requires at least version 1.7. the
same problem is not apply to junit since junit 4.x called junit4, but
ant 1.7 not called ant17 like in case of automake and autoconf.
so my question is there any way to somehow include ant 1.7.x in epel? is
it possible to add a package ant17 to epel? or is it against the epel
policies?
thanks in advance.
yours.

--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

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

is it possible to add ant-1.7.x to epel?
 

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 05:57:46PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> hi,
> currently ant-1.6.5-2jpp.2 included in rhel while ant-1.7.0 in fedora.
> since even 1.7.0 is almost 2 years old (1.6.5 is more then 3 years)
> there are many java packages which requires at least version 1.7. the
> same problem is not apply to junit since junit 4.x called junit4, but
> ant 1.7 not called ant17 like in case of automake and autoconf.
> so my question is there any way to somehow include ant 1.7.x in epel? is
> it possible to add a package ant17 to epel? or is it against the epel
> policies?

I cannot speak for the project as a whole, but if ant17 doesn't
conflicts with RHEL/EPEL packages, it seems to me that it could be
acceptable -- especially if you can show what a package using ant17
should use to build and select the corresponding ant and not the one
from RHEL.

It would be better to coordinate with the RHEL packager to prepare for
the obsoletes and such.

--
Pat

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

is it possible to add ant-1.7.x to epel?
 

On 10.11.2008 18:05, Patrice Dumas wrote:

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 05:57:46PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:

currently ant-1.6.5-2jpp.2 included in rhel while ant-1.7.0 in fedora.
since even 1.7.0 is almost 2 years old (1.6.5 is more then 3 years)
there are many java packages which requires at least version 1.7. the
same problem is not apply to junit since junit 4.x called junit4, but
ant 1.7 not called ant17 like in case of automake and autoconf.
so my question is there any way to somehow include ant 1.7.x in epel? is
it possible to add a package ant17 to epel? or is it against the epel
policies?

I cannot speak for the project as a whole, but if ant17 doesn't
conflicts with RHEL/EPEL packages, it seems to me that it could be
acceptable -- especially if you can show what a package using ant17
should use to build and select the corresponding ant and not the one
from RHEL.


Well, until now the rule iirc basically was: If a software is in RHEL
then it's not acceptable to also ship it in EPEL. That iirc is one of
reasons why asterisk is not in EPEL, as it iirc requires a newer speex
then the one that's in EL5. Details should be somewhere in the archives
of this list.


But whatever: I'd say for the speex case it might be acceptable to
include a newer speex in EPEL5, as long it doesn't disturb speex from EL
or packages from EL that use the speex from EL5. And of course it's
easier for everyone if the speex in RHEL gets updated.


For ant I'm not that sure if packaging a newer version is wise or not,
as I'm not familiar enough with it. But I tend to say "that way lie
dragons", as it's hard to draw the line where to stop with it --
otherwise we soon get request to include openoffice3 or kde4 in EPEL...


CU
knurd

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

is it possible to add ant-1.7.x to epel?
 

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:48:13PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> For ant I'm not that sure if packaging a newer version is wise or not,
> as I'm not familiar enough with it. But I tend to say "that way lie
> dragons", as it's hard to draw the line where to stop with it --
> otherwise we soon get request to include openoffice3 or kde4 in EPEL...

I don't view it as an issue, as long as
* the upgrade path is right, that is the EPEL package is updated by the
corresponding RHEL/EPEL package in the next RHEL/EPEL release,
which implies some coordination with RHEL/EPEL maintainers.
* the packages are stable enough for inclusing in EPEL, which is not the
case for the 2 you mentionned, in my opinion, but is certainly so for
ant17.

--
Pat

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

is it possible to add ant-1.7.x to epel?
 

On 10.11.2008 21:57, Patrice Dumas wrote:

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:48:13PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
For ant I'm not that sure if packaging a newer version is wise or not,
as I'm not familiar enough with it. But I tend to say "that way lie
dragons", as it's hard to draw the line where to stop with it --
otherwise we soon get request to include openoffice3 or kde4 in EPEL...


I don't view it as an issue, as long as
* the upgrade path is right, that is the EPEL package is updated by the
corresponding RHEL/EPEL package in the next RHEL/EPEL release,
which implies some coordination with RHEL/EPEL maintainers.


Well, such coordination in the EPEL past afaics often didn't work that
well (just like it didn't in the Extras days when Extras maintainers had
to deal with maintainers from Fedora Core).


* the packages are stable enough for inclusing in EPEL, which is not the
case for the 2 you mentionned, in my opinion, but is certainly so for
ant17.


Well, the 2 I mentioned were (obviously) extreme examples. But as I
said: where draw the line/where stop? People likely have good reasons
for hundred other packages that are basically new versions of software
that is already included in RHEL. I fear that the whole things could get
quite messy over time.


Enough said. Just my 2 cent of course.

CU
knurd

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

is it possible to add ant-1.7.x to epel?
 

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:14:36PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>
>> I don't view it as an issue, as long as * the upgrade path is right,
>> that is the EPEL package is updated by the corresponding RHEL/EPEL
>> package in the next RHEL/EPEL release, which implies some
>> coordination with RHEL/EPEL maintainers.
>
> Well, such coordination in the EPEL past afaics often didn't work that
> well (just like it didn't in the Extras days when Extras maintainers had
> to deal with maintainers from Fedora Core).

Agreed. I am still quite upset by the lack of coordination around
lesstif/openmotif. This could be a prerequisite for the inclusion of
those packages.

> Well, the 2 I mentioned were (obviously) extreme examples. But as I
> said: where draw the line/where stop? People likely have good reasons
> for hundred other packages that are basically new versions of software
> that is already included in RHEL. I fear that the whole things could get
> quite messy over time.

As long as the guidelines are followed, including the EPEL specific
ones, I can't see what would be wrong. Maybe there could be a guideline
to force people to ask on this list before they proceed.

--
Pat

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

is it possible to add ant-1.7.x to epel?
 

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 10.11.2008 21:57, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 09:48:13PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> For ant I'm not that sure if packaging a newer version is wise or
>>> not, as I'm not familiar enough with it. But I tend to say "that way
>>> lie dragons", as it's hard to draw the line where to stop with it
>>> -- otherwise we soon get request to include openoffice3 or kde4 in
>>> EPEL...
>>
>> I don't view it as an issue, as long as * the upgrade path is right,
>> that is the EPEL package is updated by the corresponding RHEL/EPEL
>> package in the next RHEL/EPEL release, which implies some
>> coordination with RHEL/EPEL maintainers.
>
> Well, such coordination in the EPEL past afaics often didn't work that
> well (just like it didn't in the Extras days when Extras maintainers had
> to deal with maintainers from Fedora Core).
>
>> * the packages are stable enough for inclusing in EPEL, which is not
>> the case for the 2 you mentionned, in my opinion, but is certainly
>> so for ant17.
>
> Well, the 2 I mentioned were (obviously) extreme examples. But as I
> said: where draw the line/where stop? People likely have good reasons
> for hundred other packages that are basically new versions of software
> that is already included in RHEL. I fear that the whole things could get
> quite messy over time.

the newer version (and-1.7) here means a 2 years old version...

--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

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

is it possible to add ant-1.7.x to epel?
 

Farkas Levente wrote:

currently ant-1.6.5-2jpp.2 included in rhel while ant-1.7.0 in fedora.
...
is it possible to add a package ant17 to epel?

+1
FYI currently NetBeans is a feature of Fedora, but it requires Ant 1.7.X

Thanks,
Victor Vasilyev

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