nagios shipped by RedHat, but in a specific subscription channel

[Till Maas]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:34:34PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Adam Miller
> <maxamillion at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Adam Miller
> >> <maxamillion at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> >> "EPEL is purely a complimentary add-on repository and does not replace
> >> packages in RHEL or layered products."
> >>
> >> to
> >>
> >> "EPEL is purely a complimentary add-on repository and does not replace
> >> packages in RHEL. [Package conflicts are determined by what is openly
> >> available from Red Hat's tree (currently located at
> >> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/) ]
> >>
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > I like it, +1 here. Should we put this to a vote at the next meeting
> > or do we want to take a poll here on the mailing list?
> >
> > -AdamM
> >
> 
> We should take a poll on the list and finalize on Friday meeting.

Imho before there is a decision, the consequences of it should be
explained to people who do not use RHEL. Which packages will this make
remove from EPEL? Afaics, there are 13 repositories involved to find
conflicts, therefore someone who really uses RHEL can probably create a
list of affected packages a lot easier, compare it with EPEL and show
which packages would be removed. This has to be done anyhow if the new
policy is accepted, otherwise you cannot enforce it, so better do it
before the change.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20100113/d8189c0d/attachment.sig>