[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

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:00 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:


> Ok this is the problem with strict policies versus writing to intention:
> If Red Hat were to mirror everything in EPEL as a channel called
> "Unsupported Community Packages from EPEL" our logical conclusion
> would be to remove all those packages from EPEL... which would remove
> them from that channel, which means we could add packages back to EPEL
> which would...
> So what is the intention that we are wanting? And can we write to
> that. Here is a list of things that come to mind in no meant order.
> 1) We do not wish to replace or conflict with the channels from a Base
> install. [EG if its on the DVD RHEL provides we don't replace or
> conflict.]
> 2) We do not know what is in all the other RHN channels. We do not
> know what will be in an update either.
> 3) Red Hat people would like that their 'free' versions of packages
> were in EPEL (the spacewalk people would like spacewalk, the 389
> people would like 389, etc) as it allows them to push newer packages
> to people who are testing them in real environments.

Possibly RH could use a one-higher Epoch in their channels.  Everybody

> 4) However inclusion of this will cause problems with other RH products.
> So how should we word it to best work out intention, should we look at
> our own layering of stuff, or something else... and whatever we decide
> lets do it.. this seems like the 8th time this discussion has come up.

Christopher McCrory
 "The guy that keeps the servers running"
chrismcc pricegrabber com
Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and
no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is
no defense.  I tried it.  Only tinfoil works.

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