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

Re: nagios shipped by RedHat, but in a specific subscription channel

>>> 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


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