On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 5:26 PM Phil Perry pperry@elrepo.org wrote:
On 14/05/2019 17:55, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 12:12:09PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
OK, that addresses my legacy access concerns, and there is a "repodata" there to support yum access as needed. Yeah, I'd be on board with migrating the obsolete components to that repo.
Awesome. Now that the project has your approval it can proceed, this is great news!
John,
I had hoped that the days of these kind of facetious comments in open source communities were well and truly behind us and that we had entered an era where we could all demonstrate respect towards each other and contribute in a positive and constructive manner. Please, let us not return to the ways of the past.
I'd merely taken that as slightly exasperated mocking that I'd taken so long to convince, not as a personal denigration.
John, I'd meant "Yeah, I'd be on board" as a friendly acknowledgement that this would address my legacy software access concerns, not a claim that it needs my personal approval.
Now, with all that in mind: Should there be some kind of comment. Should there be some kind of acknowledgement in the CentOS-Vault repo along with a pointer to such a repository of "these are so dangerously obsolete that we've overridden RHEL's publication of the original sclo channel and decided to shut these elsewhere"? What would such a channel be called? Would its contents be left permanently in the "obsolete" channel?