ius-community team mailing list archive

[BJ Dierkes <wdierkes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 22, 2010, at 12:49 PM, David Strauss wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 11:15 -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:
>> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
>> 
>> A possible solution would be to create an additional repository for
>> these types of packages.  Essentially, a repo where IUS packages can
>> move to if they are added to RHEL base.  This repo would be different
>> in that it would not be enabled by default via the ius-release
>> package... and the packages in the repo have the same name as a
>> package in stock RHEL.
>> 
>> We have not made any changes at this point.  If you have any feedback
>> please feel free to reply on list.  Thinking of an appropriate name
>> for the repo would be helpful as well, as we are unsure what name
>> would make sense to users.
> 
> It seems like it would be more consistent to further extend the name of
> the IUS package. Typically, IUS seems to do this by adding a suffix more
> specifically indicating the version. Perhaps a php53u package (or
> similar) would be in order, with the "u" (or other character) indicating
> that the package intends to march forward with upstream stable releases,
> in contrast to RHEL sticking with a specific release and back-porting
> fixes.
> 


This is a really good idea.  I had a brief thought of making 'php53' become 'php53-ius' just to make it a different package name... but really thought it was messy and confusing like.  But 'php53u' is a good alternative... and would allow us to maintain the upgrade model... rather than adding another repo that would be confusing.  Thankfully this is a really edge case... I don't really expect RHEL 5.x to get many more additions like this... but adding a 'u' for 'upstream' makes complete sense.

Thanks for the feedback!

---
BJ Dierkes
Linux Systems Engineer IV / [RH]acker
Infrastructure Services [Development]
Rackspace Hosting