I am a bit confused why you used "shall" and not "SHOULD" or "MUST"? To me it sounds a bit archaic, like "though shall not steal" or something like that :)

Yeah, I think should or must would be better... I'd say must...

Updated to "must".

here too?

Updated.

LGTM, thanks!

Yeah, +1 thanks.

I see two acks and no dissents.

I was going to merge this, but...looking again, should we perhaps put this in epel docs? or both in epel docs and here?

CC: @carlwgeorge @tdawson

Sure, but please point out a specific location. I didn't see any such.

Yes, I think it needs to go into the epel docs as well.
It would go in as one of the steps here
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-missing-sub-packages/#short_term

Hmm, that whole page is about "Missing RHEL Sub-Packages", and that particular section is about the short-term handling of that. But the topic at hand is "EPEL-only packages", i.e. something broader and distinct.

Hmm, that whole page is about "Missing RHEL Sub-Packages", and that particular section is about the short-term handling of that. But the topic at hand is "EPEL-only packages", i.e. something broader and distinct.

You are correct, and there might be some other place to put it.
But that section should have the extra step added.

Hmm, that whole page is about "Missing RHEL Sub-Packages", and that particular section is about the short-term handling of that. But the topic at hand is "EPEL-only packages", i.e. something broader and distinct.

You are correct, and there might be some other place to put it.
But that section should have the extra step added.

And I should read what I'm pointing to. It's already there. Sorry for the noise.

Me too. :) Sorry for the sidetrack.