nagios shipped by RedHat, but in a specific subscription channel
Michael Stahnke
mastahnke at gmail.com
Tue Jan 12 15:48:47 UTC 2010
>>> Do we stick to our policy as is or do we want to make a revision?
I propose a revision. I propose we don't step on anything in the AP
channels. Also, if we are having a collision problem with other Red
Hat provided layered channels, a bug could be filed and we could
attempt to resolve it by a lower package number or something. It's
not that I blatantly want to ignore other channels, it's that if we
exclude all of those products in EPEL, EPEL becomes less useful to the
enterprise customers it was aimed at.
>>
>> It seems to me looking in from the outside that you have already made
>> a revision to the policy by including 389, nagios, and possibly other
>> things. Might as well move on the figuring out what the real policy is
>> going to be and correctly documenting it.
389 isn't a policy violation, Red Hat does not ship it. They ship Red
Hat DS, which is based from 389 but not the same thing. I would
assume we could ship spacewalk, freeipa and others in a similar
fashion.
stahnma
More information about the epel-devel-list
mailing list