On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Michael Stahnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could we add this to the next steering committee meeting? Here are the > issues: >
I am running a 102 fever but can't sleep so I hope this is lucid. The next scheduled meeting is the 18th at some time UTC my brain is not parsing. > 1. "Layered" products, such as cluster server, ship some support > packages like perl modules, etc. Should those be allowed in EPEL? > They are not part of core RHEL. IMHO, as much software as possible > should be available for everybody. At my place of employment, if I > need a package and it's not in EPEL, I then have to build/maintain my > own, which is what EPEL hopes to stop. I could see the EPEL committee > denying some 'core' packages of each layered channel, (such as RHDS > core packages, cluster server core packages for RHEL 4, etc). > I would prefer to see it in EPEL in some form. The issue is how we structure it and keep it working. [Well Joe needs perl-foo-baz-1.1 and Bill needs perl-foo-baz-1.8.. ] > 2. Even competing with layered products seems bad. If we would like > RHX to have the same packages as in EPEL but be able to buy support > for them, shouldn't RH do the same? That way the software is > available to those who would like to preview it, use it with CentOS, > Scientific, etc. I realize this contradictory to what EPEL started > with, but our goal should be software to everybody, at least that's > what I think. > I agree but I think we are going to need to change to meet this... how we do this will be where we need to talk with the community and get some ideas. > 3. What about products such as Free IPA vs IPA, Fedora DS vs RHDS, > Spacewalk vs Satellite etc? If there is a fully open offering, can we > put it in EPEL and not officially be 'conflicting' with the RH channel > for it? I think that if its in Fedora, and does not conflict/update it can go into EPEL so OpenJDK, FreeIPA, FedoraDS, Spacewalk, could meet that criteria. > 4. Firmware packages that are on the supplemental EL discs. To me, > this is just to make some hardware work, shouldn't that be easily > available? As an enterprise customer, it'd be a lot easier to have it > in EPEL (which I am going to use anyway) than to have to > download/import the supplemental disc. > This gets harder.. what is the distribution license on the firmware packages? Even if its meant to make some hardware work.. I know this will cause all kinds of "why can't we hack it.. its not free and cant be in Fedora stuff." And I think that will fall under the if its not in fedora its not in EPEL. > I am sure there are more questions and conflicts, and I don't want to > stomp on Red Hat, but I would like to make EPEL as usable and complete > as possible. > PS I won't be the EPEL meeting Monday. I had it marked for the 18th. Is Monday not working for people? > > stahnma > > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list > -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
