On 26 August 2016 at 06:00, Daniel Letai <dani(a)letai.org.il> wrote:
On 08/25/2016 11:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Perhaps you could explain exactly what you want to propose here again?
Just epel6? or 7 as well? Do you have co-maintainers in case you get
busy, etc?
I propose adding several gnu packages (namely gcc, binutils and gdb) with
versions following those supplied by fedora, specifically for epel6, but
possibly for epel7 if requested.
This could hold a pattern such as /opt/gnu/[gcc|binutils|gdb]/<version>/ to
allow several version to co-exist.
I don't have any co-maintainers, but I mainly get busy in my day job, which
happens to be the reason I maintain those packages.
OK there were multiple reasons there were reservations for this:
1) /opt/gnu (and many other /opt/*) names are already in use by many
site admistrators. Putting our packages in there and over-writing
locally compiled apps is going to cause problems. [Remember rpm will
overwrite /opt/gnu/gcc/5.0/bin/gcc if it wasn't in the rpm db before
hand without any report of a conflict.]
2) What you are proposing is a completely new way of packaging
software from how Fedora or EPEL has done it before. That means it
needs a fuller proposal and reasoning than a single email. The SCL
process took years of work with many iterations because various people
found many valid problems that needed addressing. [There were also
many useless nitpicks but that seems to be part and process of open
source]
Neither of the above is a "no". It is a "you need to do a lot of
groundwork before it is going to happen in any form."
--
Stephen J Smoogen.