https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346531
--- Comment #16 from Carl George 🤠<[email protected]> --- > This is supposed to be EPEL only package. I have not found any other way how > to get it in. EPEL-only packages are fairly rare and should not be needed in most cases. The primary case is for unshipped subpackages, as the docs I linked describes. Why does this need to be EPEL only? Are these policies in the Fedora selinux-policy package? If so, why are they not present in the RHEL package? Can these be included in the RHEL package? > This is actually a bug and I will address it. Once this is fixed, many paths will conflict with the RHEL selinux-policy-devel package, which is not allowed by EPEL policy. We have an exception to allow this only in the narrow use case of providing an alternate version of software for compatibility purposes. This is not the same situation. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#policy_for_conflicting_packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346531 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202346531%23c16 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
