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

Re: Thoughts from last meeting



On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 15:24 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, at our last meeting: 
> 
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meetbot/teams/epel/epel.2012-05-23-22.12.html
> 
> There seemed to be a fair bit of push to change our policy from: 
> 
> "EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors
> under 6* directories with the following exception: If the binary rpm is
> only shipped in some arches in RHEL, EPEL may ship a package as close
> as possible to the RHEL version with a leading package Release of 0.
> (ie, libfoo-1.2-0.x) (note that EPEL maintainer must keep up exactly
> with the RHEL src.rpm where possible)."
> 
> to
> 
> "EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors
> under 6-Server, 6-Server-ha, 6-Server-optional, 6-Server-lb, except
> packages missing in one of our supported arches may be shipped by EPEL,
> but must abide by
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages.
> Additionally, EPEL will drop packages that overlap with other RHEL
> channels/layered products on request of those channel owners"
> 
> Is that what folks in that meeting were thinking (I wrote up the
> statement that I thought people were agreeing to, I could well have
> messed up people's intent)?
> 
> So, what do people think of the above? 
> Any amendments? Problems that we should note or might sway people to
> want to adjust it?
> 
> This gives channel owner/layered products people the ability to decide
> if overlaping with epel for their specific channel use/case makes sense
> or not, or if it would cause problems for them.
> 
> Anyhow, thoughts? concerns? 
> 

I think this is clear and concise with reasonable motivation.
+1

-AdamM



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