On 14/05/2019 13:40, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 07:57, Jan Staněk <jstanek at redhat.com > <mailto:jstanek at redhat.com>> wrote: > > As the person in charge of maintaining updates for the rh-* SCLs, > I can say that I'm not shipping/caring about these once they are > marked > as EOL; so from my POV, they can be removed if it is not desirable to > have them in the repositories. > > That being said, there is a possibility that a inter-SCL > dependency will > break, as have happened last summer with rh-ror42 (maintained at the > time) and rh-nodejs4 (EOL). Since upstream does not remove the > unmaintained packages from the repos, such dependencies won't be > discovered until someone does remove them. > > Basically, I'm in favor of removing the EOL SCLs, but it might break > non-EOL collections, which will take some time to fix. > > > Is there a way to archive these versus remove them? That way people > who are looking for them would know that they are EOL but they could > make their own copy and maintain it themselves? > Standard practice in the past has been to move expired things to vault.centos.org - for example http://vault.centos.org/centos/7.5.1804/sclo/x86_64/sclo/ Trevor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20190514/90897e71/attachment-0008.html>