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

Re: Overlap policy v20120615



On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge gmail com> wrote:
> Well of course it is arbitrary. Any definition we use is going to be
> arbitrary because well there is no rock solid proof that says "this is
> RHEL" and "this isn't RHEL". Expecting us to define that definition
> when it is clear that even Red Hat has no rock solid definition is
> preposterous. So this is our arbitrary line in the sand. It is no
> better or worse than if we drew it 2 feet to the left or 2 feet to the
> right. However until the tide comes in and washes it away, this is the
> one we are looking to use.

True but drawing it two feet to the left treats all the fuzz
consistently. If you are in the Add-Ons your package might be included
in EPEL is much easier to remember and to understand than if you are
in the Add-Ons but you aren't in the LB or the HA Add-Ons then your
package might be included in EPEL.

Consistent, easy to grok as an EPEL/RHEL user, and more flexible for
EPEL packagers.

John


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