On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:00 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: <snip>
> Ok this is the problem with strict policies versus writing to intention: > > If Red Hat were to mirror everything in EPEL as a channel called > "Unsupported Community Packages from EPEL" our logical conclusion > would be to remove all those packages from EPEL... which would remove > them from that channel, which means we could add packages back to EPEL > which would... > > So what is the intention that we are wanting? And can we write to > that. Here is a list of things that come to mind in no meant order. > > 1) We do not wish to replace or conflict with the channels from a Base > install. [EG if its on the DVD RHEL provides we don't replace or > conflict.] > 2) We do not know what is in all the other RHN channels. We do not > know what will be in an update either. > 3) Red Hat people would like that their 'free' versions of packages > were in EPEL (the spacewalk people would like spacewalk, the 389 > people would like 389, etc) as it allows them to push newer packages > to people who are testing them in real environments. Possibly RH could use a one-higher Epoch in their channels. Everybody wins. > 4) However inclusion of this will cause problems with other RH products. > > So how should we word it to best work out intention, should we look at > our own layering of stuff, or something else... and whatever we decide > lets do it.. this seems like the 8th time this discussion has come up. > > -- Christopher McCrory "The guy that keeps the servers running" [email protected] http://www.pricegrabber.com Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is no defense. I tried it. Only tinfoil works. _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
