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

Re: Overlap policy v20120615



Hi Guys,

I'm not involved with the EPEL base itself, but have an interest..

On 06/15/2012 05:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> "EPEL6 will not normally ship packages that are shipped already in the
> following RHEL channels: os, optional, lb, and ha. Any overlapping
> packages must be to provide binary packages on arches not provided by
> RHEL ( following:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages ). 
> Additional channels may be added to this list, based on a criteria the
> EPEL sig has yet to decide on."

What is the overall appetite for expanding scope rather than reducing
scope ? i.e could something like this work :

- the base repo can only contain stuff that isnt in  'os', 'optional',
'lb' and 'ha'. For existing packages moved into those channels post-
point 0 release, the responsibility to notify epel should fall on the
@redhat.com maintainer.

- a secondary repo, can then contain anything that meets the license
terms of Fedora acceptance - i.e be open source and all that. This paves
the way for a newer mysql or an alternate postfix build to then come
into 'community' hands.

nutshell: rather than find ways to do less, and create more barriers -
find a way to do more and have fewer barriers.

-- 
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219    | Yahoo IM: z00dax      | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc


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