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

Re: Some EPEL thoughts (was Re: perl-Net-Telnet both in EPEL and RHEL)

On 09.08.2008 04:50, Michael Stahnke wrote:
Could we add this to the next steering committee meeting?  Here are the issues:

1.  "Layered" products, such as cluster server, ship some support
packages like perl modules, etc.  Should those be allowed in EPEL?
They are not part of core RHEL.  IMHO, as much software as possible
should be available for everybody. [...]

I tend to agree. Heck most EPEL contributors don't even know what's in those layer products and have no way to check that. But OTOH it might be nice if possible without to much hassle to add them to EPEL with a EVR that is lower than the one in the layered product.

3.  What about products such as Free IPA vs IPA, Fedora DS vs RHDS,
Spacewalk vs Satellite etc?  If there is a fully open offering, can we
put it in EPEL and not officially be 'conflicting' with the RH channel
for it?

The old goal was not to include those. But I'd now say we should. It's open source software; if people want it for free they will simply go somewhere else if people they don't get from EPEL. If they want support they'll pay RH anyway. Most are used to that concept from RH<->CentOS already anyway.

4. Firmware packages that are on the supplemental EL discs.  To me,
this is just to make some hardware work, shouldn't that be easily
available?  As an enterprise customer, it'd be a lot easier to have it
in EPEL (which I am going to use anyway) than to have to
download/import the supplemental disc.

Hmm. If they are free enough for Fedora/EPEL then why are they not free enough for the stock RHEL media?

I am sure there are more questions and conflicts, and I don't want to
stomp on Red Hat, but I would like to make EPEL as usable and complete
as possible.



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