[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 Fri, 8 Aug 2008, 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.  At my place of employment, if I
> need a package and it's not in EPEL, I then have to build/maintain my
> own, which is what EPEL hopes to stop.  I could see the EPEL committee
> denying some 'core' packages of each layered channel, (such as RHDS
> core packages, cluster server core packages for RHEL 4, etc).

Don't those already ship as part of CentOS?  Maybe we should just send
people to CentOS if they want them but don't want to pay for them?

> 2.  Even competing with layered products seems bad.  If we would like
> RHX to have the same packages as in EPEL but be able to buy support
> for them, shouldn't RH do the same?  That way the software is
> available to those who would like to preview it, use it with CentOS,
> Scientific, etc.  I realize this contradictory to what EPEL started
> with, but our goal should be software to everybody, at least that's
> what I think.

I'm curious about the future of RHX as well.  Many of the groups in RHX
have made a comittment to Open Source but that doesn't mean getting some
of those packages playing well with the Fedora/EPEL model will be easy.

> 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?

I'd think absolutely it could be in if it is non-conflicting.


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