On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well of course it is arbitrary. Any definition we use is going to be > arbitrary because well there is no rock solid proof that says "this is > RHEL" and "this isn't RHEL". Expecting us to define that definition > when it is clear that even Red Hat has no rock solid definition is > preposterous. So this is our arbitrary line in the sand. It is no > better or worse than if we drew it 2 feet to the left or 2 feet to the > right. However until the tide comes in and washes it away, this is the > one we are looking to use.
True but drawing it two feet to the left treats all the fuzz consistently. If you are in the Add-Ons your package might be included in EPEL is much easier to remember and to understand than if you are in the Add-Ons but you aren't in the LB or the HA Add-Ons then your package might be included in EPEL. Consistent, easy to grok as an EPEL/RHEL user, and more flexible for EPEL packagers. John _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
