>>> Do we stick to our policy as is or do we want to make a revision? I propose a revision. I propose we don't step on anything in the AP channels. Also, if we are having a collision problem with other Red Hat provided layered channels, a bug could be filed and we could attempt to resolve it by a lower package number or something. It's not that I blatantly want to ignore other channels, it's that if we exclude all of those products in EPEL, EPEL becomes less useful to the enterprise customers it was aimed at.
>> >> It seems to me looking in from the outside that you have already made >> a revision to the policy by including 389, nagios, and possibly other >> things. Might as well move on the figuring out what the real policy is >> going to be and correctly documenting it. 389 isn't a policy violation, Red Hat does not ship it. They ship Red Hat DS, which is based from 389 but not the same thing. I would assume we could ship spacewalk, freeipa and others in a similar fashion. stahnma _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
