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

Re: Zenoss Core



Christopher Blunck (chris zenoss com) said: 
> Thorsten Leemhius suggested we consider the EPEL repository since it feeds 
> RHEL.  I replied saying that we're in RHX already (but not for Zenoss 
> Core).
>
> I wanted to join this list to get a better idea for where we can park our 
> OSS "Zenoss Core" product such that it is included in subsequent Fedora 
> releases, is considered for inclusion in upcoming RHEL releases, and is 
> possibly also included in RHX (alongside our commercial enterprise 
> product).  I'm very new to the EPEL/Livna/Fedora repository landscape, but 
> I'm very familiar with Linux, distros, yum, up2date, and all the other 
> infrastructure.  I'm asking for a bit of help in understanding what 
> repositories and processes feed distributions and releases so that I can 
> understand where we should try to park our OSS "Zenoss Core" product.
>
> Any insight (wikis/FAQs/HOWTOs) that anyone can provide would be happily 
> accepted! :)

>From a raw technical standpoint:

- All repos must be internally consistent
  - Fedora can only require Fedora packages
  - EPEL can only require RHEL + EPEL packages
  - Livna can only require Fedora + Livna packages (presumably)

So, where your stuff goes depends on where its dependencies go, essentially.
That being said, it's possible to have apps in EPEL but not the latest Fedora,
even if that's not preferred (I think - there may be EPEL guidelines against
this.)

Bill


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