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

Re: Thoughts from last meeting



On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley gmail com> wrote:
> I consider the layered entitlements (including cluster and lb)

Which were always part of the "AS"/"Advanced Platform" entitlements,
and rebuilt by most "EL Rebuilds," from virtually day 1.  And these
have not been allowed under the past EPEL guidelines from day 1 as
well, unless I am mistaken.

> to *not* be a part of RHEL - they are part of a different product,

So you would suggest EPEL take over this role, and the EL Rebuilds
drop it as well?

> sold and priced differently (the fact that you have to have the base product in order
> to buy the layered ones makes no difference either - I have to have a car, or else
> buying floormats doesn't make any sense).

Then why isn't that left to "EL Rebuilds" instead of Red Hat's
sponsored Fedora Project when it comes to Enterprise Linux bits?

Also, what do you believe this does to Red Hat customers who use EPEL?
 Or are you under the believe Red Hat customers should not, which has
been suggested prior?  Who does EPEL serve?

Does Fedora's EPEL serve as the unified rebuild tree from Red Hat's
SRPMS?  Or where is the line drawn?

> So to put it in concrete terms, I advocate that EPEL does not ship
> anything that is in -server and -server-optional. Anything else is
> fair game, unless explicitly asked by Red Hat to remove the bits.

And what if Red Hat does?  Do you accept such?  And who from Red Hat?
And how does that work?


--
Bryan J Smith - Professional, Technical Annoyance
http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith


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