Re: [HTCondor-devel] Which HTCondor series in Fedora?

[William Benton <willb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ben, thanks for your thoughtful treatment of this issue. I totallyÂagree that option 2 is preferableÂ(although I alsoÂbet we wouldn't have to look very hard to find at least a few Fedora packages that tracked non-stableÂbranchesÂof their upstreams).

I don't have a great sense for how much people are exercising the development branch of HTCondorÂbecause it's available in a downstream package, but I see 14 bugs against the Fedora condorÂpackage in the last year, most of which seem to be particular to the package:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=CLOSED&classification=Fedora&component=condor&list_id=5126420&order=changeddate%20DESC%2Cbug_status%2Cpriority%2Cassigned_to%2Cbug_id&product=Fedora&query_based_on=&query_format=advanced&target_milestone=---

So packaging theÂstable streamÂmight not have a ton of downside.

best,

wb

On Monday, May 16, 2016, Ben Cotton <ben.cotton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

TL;DR: Updating the development series in Fedora is a violation of the
packaging guidelines. What should we do about it? I have a suggestion:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fJTA3VZn7rFe74ABcJVOctkwj-ko8rUkE6SFXW1uNww/edit?usp=sharing

I'd be happy to talk about this during HTCondor Week gatherings or via
e-mail. The document above is editable, so feel free to add comments
as well.


Thanks,
BC

--
Ben Cotton

Cycle Computing
Better Answers. Faster.

http://www.cyclecomputing.com
twitter: @cyclecomputing
_______________________________________________
HTCondor-devel mailing list
HTCondor-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/htcondor-devel