-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/18/2010 11:10 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:40:28 -0600 > Stephen John Smoogen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I sent a ping a while back on putting in a weight of 2000 for EPEL-6 >> and the general consensus was that it did not matter to them what we >> did. [More or less.] So I would say that when we update the >> epel-release next time to put it in the epel.repo. [And make sure we >> announce it for partners.] > > And if we do that, we should be able to clone RHEL Workstation packages > (the ones not in RHEL Server) and put them EPEL without causing issues > for RHEL Workstation users... > > Shouldn't we? >
I'm of the opinion that we should still not do this, except for extreme situations. EPEL was not meant to be an end-run around RHEL packages or RHEL pricing, and while we could technically do it and have less chance of hurting people's systems, I don't think EPEL is the place for that. There is plenty of room for a slightly more removed repository from EPEL where one could provide updated versions of packages. - -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyWVooACgkQ4v2HLvE71NXG/gCfbsbQuywNSVXOWsq8Z8MJk2rV vbAAnionBvNavd0QrAKaV8OJRrmYfZIA =OuCE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
