inode0 wrote: > The context here is important. Then I will try to understand and not read too much into it. My apologies for my prior, as I did tangent reading too much into it, outside of your context. At the same time, some of my comments still do apply.
> I am questioning the policy of allowing Red Hat channel owners a veto power > over EPEL maintainers in cases of a package Red Hat provides for some > architectures but not for others. Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to read too much into anything, but where does that view stop in Fedora? There is a thin line, especially in x86. I've already run into it several times. I'm just pointing out my experiences. I would have to say some of the biggest nightmares at a few enterprises have been the interjection of incorrect x86 packages into x86-64. That is, of course, if x86 was the consideration. If not, my apologies. But if it is, I do understand how there may be concern with consideration for or even by Red Hat customers. There may be the further support or service validity to why. Giving them an option to interject into Fedora might be a necessary move. If I read this correctly, it would allow the issue to be raised, and it would need to be raised, not the other way around. I.e., Fedora doesn't go looking. It's up to others to raise it. Again, my apologies if I am off-base. Given your re-explanation, and my over-stepping prior, I just wanted to say I understand your point. But I still have concerns. -- Bryan _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
