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

Re: EPEL acceptance policy

On 3/12/07, Tim Burke <tburke redhat com> wrote:

I was just checking out the acceptance policy listed here:

There's a few acceptance criteria that I think it would help to
blatantly spell out there.  Perhaps this is really nit points and could
be safely assumed, but I think it doesn't hurt to spell things out.

I think the intention is to not ship in EPEL stuff which RH already
ships. Specifically this is stated as: "Thus packages from EPEL should
never replace packages from the target base distribution"

I'm wondering if people may misinterpret that to think that things not
on the base RHEL isos are fair game for replacement.  Layered products
from RH which are delivered separately from the OS come to mind.
Another example would be packages which are only intended for certain
release variants.  For example, the GFS cluster components are not
available to desktop / client configurations - server only.

Tying to think of an alternative recommended wording:

"thus packages from EPEL should never replace packages delivered by Red
Hat - including those on the base distribution as well as layered products."

Well the one problem I can see that is a bootstrap problem.. if RHEL
picks up some subset of EPEL packages for its own subchannel. However,
that is really nitpicking something to death.

Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

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