[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RHN software channels & EPEL



Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 02.08.2007 10:08, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

Just wondering: would it be fine for EPEL to ship for example
mysql-connector-odbc under a different name
("mysql-connector-odbc-epel")? Then we would not replace packages from
layered products, just provide something (without support) that's also
provided by a layered product (which has support).
That depends on how comfortable you are letting EPEL be a way to bypass a product requirement essentially.

Complicated topic.

If it is for libraries it might still be required and useful for other reasons

Exactly. Not having some libs just because some layered product ships
them as well could be problematic for EPEL and hurt it a lot.

but what about say fedora directory server in EPEL?

I'm unsure myself about this one. A *short* version and just a fragment
of the thoughts in my head: people pay Red Hat for the support, but some
people might just want the support for the OS, but not for a specific
software they install. Should we try to force those people into the
existing model (users nevertheless can just rebuild the Fedora-DS or
RHEL-DS SRPM) or do we simply offer what we have and let them chose if
they want payed support or not?
How about using the yum protectbase plugin ? With it, it would be trivial to make sure we never replace core/layered/other important products


--
    Manuel Wolfshant       linux registered user #131416
       IT manager    NoBug Consulting SRL
   http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=40317



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]