[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, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Michael Stahnke <mastahnke gmail com> wrote:
>>>> Do we stick to our policy as is or do we want to make a revision?

Just to check these extra channels with nagios in for instance are not available
from CentOS or similar are they? Moving to an expected base below EPEL that
is bigger than CentOS will surly create a problem for many people.

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

Steve Traylen

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