RHN software channels & EPEL

[Manuel Wolfshant]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 02.08.2007 10:08, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>   
>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Just wondering: would it be fine for EPEL to ship for example
>>> mysql-connector-odbc under a different name
>>> ("mysql-connector-odbc-epel")? Then we would not replace packages from
>>> layered products, just provide something (without support) that's also
>>> provided by a layered product (which has support).
>>>       
>> That depends on how comfortable you are letting EPEL be a way to bypass 
>> a product requirement essentially.
>>     
>
> Complicated topic.
>
>   
>> If it is for libraries it might still be required and useful for other 
>> reasons
>>     
>
> Exactly. Not having some libs just because some layered product ships
> them as well could be problematic for EPEL and hurt it a lot.
>
>   
>> but what about say fedora directory server in EPEL?
>>     
>
> I'm unsure myself about this one. A *short* version and just a fragment
> of the thoughts in my head: people pay Red Hat for the support, but some
> people might just want the support for the OS, but not for a specific
> software they install. Should we try to force those people into the
> existing model (users nevertheless can just rebuild the Fedora-DS or
> RHEL-DS SRPM) or do we simply offer what we have and let them chose if
> they want payed support or not?
How about using the yum protectbase plugin ? With it, it would be 
trivial to make sure we never replace core/layered/other important products


-- 
     Manuel Wolfshant       linux registered user #131416
        IT manager    NoBug Consulting SRL
    http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=40317