Hi Guys, I'm not involved with the EPEL base itself, but have an interest..
On 06/15/2012 05:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > "EPEL6 will not normally ship packages that are shipped already in the > following RHEL channels: os, optional, lb, and ha. Any overlapping > packages must be to provide binary packages on arches not provided by > RHEL ( following: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages ). > Additional channels may be added to this list, based on a criteria the > EPEL sig has yet to decide on." What is the overall appetite for expanding scope rather than reducing scope ? i.e could something like this work : - the base repo can only contain stuff that isnt in 'os', 'optional', 'lb' and 'ha'. For existing packages moved into those channels post- point 0 release, the responsibility to notify epel should fall on the @redhat.com maintainer. - a secondary repo, can then contain anything that meets the license terms of Fedora acceptance - i.e be open source and all that. This paves the way for a newer mysql or an alternate postfix build to then come into 'community' hands. nutshell: rather than find ways to do less, and create more barriers - find a way to do more and have fewer barriers. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
