Supporting other repositories.

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 07.11.2008 19:50, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 11:10:08AM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> Ok loaded term but I was wondering if we could work with spacewalk,
>> ipa, ds, etc to support their work by including at least a
>> spacewalk-release or similar item. This would allow us to 'test' the
>> waters of working closer with the other layered upstreams. Basically
>> instead of having to hunt around for every different repository, we
>> work with the upstream project ot have a signed release that works
>> with the EPEL releases.

That can easily and quickly get messy for everyone involved if (a) users 
  enable more then one of those layered repos and (b) there is more then 
just the software you want (e.g. libs, perl modules, other stuff that 
the software you want requires) in the those layered repos (which afaics 
is the case).

In other, clearer words: Users will sooner or later run into repo mixing 
problems that are similar to those that users faced when they tried to 
enable different add-on repos for Fedora (say atrpms, freshrpms and 
livna) at the same time.

Sure, most of those problems can be prevented before they happen by a 
lot of coordination in the first place. But it's afaics way easier for 
everyone to just put everything in one repo where people are working 
together already.

 > [...]
> Part of the original premise (promise?) of EPEL is that it would *not*
> replicate Red Hat's layered products.  We sat down with Tim Burke and
> Daniel Riek (RHEL engineering and product management) at FUDCon in
> Boston, and that was a clear and important point from their end of the
> conversation.
> 
> How are we planning on addressing that?

The meeting you refer to was 21 months ago iirc (Fudcon Boston 2007). 
Maybe the opinions of those two changed in between, now that EPEL is 
properly running for some time? Might be worth a quick check.

 > [...]

CU
knurd