Conversations with centos-devel

[Paul Howarth]

On 19/09/10 19:29, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/18/2010 11:10 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:40:28 -0600
>> Stephen John Smoogen<smooge at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> I sent a ping a while back on putting in a weight of 2000 for EPEL-6
>>> and the general consensus was that it did not matter to them what we
>>> did. [More or less.] So I would say that when we update the
>>> epel-release next time to put it in the epel.repo. [And make sure we
>>> announce it for partners.]
>>
>> And if we do that, we should be able to clone RHEL Workstation packages
>> (the ones not in RHEL Server) and put them EPEL without causing issues
>> for RHEL Workstation users...
>>
>> Shouldn't we?
>>
>
> I'm of the opinion that we should still not do this, except for extreme
> situations.  EPEL was not meant to be an end-run around RHEL packages or
> RHEL pricing, and while we could technically do it and have less chance
> of hurting people's systems, I don't think EPEL is the place for that.
> There is plenty of room for a slightly more removed repository from EPEL
> where one could provide updated versions of packages.

Well let's suppose that when RHEL-6 comes out, there's no add-on 
repository to provide Workstation packages for Server customers. Are you 
suggesting that a server product like bugzilla, which has at least one 
dependency on a Workstation-only package 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626218) should be moved to 
a "slightly more removed repository"? And where might that be?

Paul.