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

Re: Conversations with centos-devel

On 19/09/10 19:29, Jesse Keating wrote:
Hash: SHA1

On 09/18/2010 11:10 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:40:28 -0600
Stephen John Smoogen<smooge gmail com>  wrote:

I sent a ping a while back on putting in a weight of 2000 for EPEL-6
and the general consensus was that it did not matter to them what we
did. [More or less.] So I would say that when we update the
epel-release next time to put it in the epel.repo. [And make sure we
announce it for partners.]

And if we do that, we should be able to clone RHEL Workstation packages
(the ones not in RHEL Server) and put them EPEL without causing issues
for RHEL Workstation users...

Shouldn't we?

I'm of the opinion that we should still not do this, except for extreme
situations.  EPEL was not meant to be an end-run around RHEL packages or
RHEL pricing, and while we could technically do it and have less chance
of hurting people's systems, I don't think EPEL is the place for that.
There is plenty of room for a slightly more removed repository from EPEL
where one could provide updated versions of packages.

Well let's suppose that when RHEL-6 comes out, there's no add-on repository to provide Workstation packages for Server customers. Are you suggesting that a server product like bugzilla, which has at least one dependency on a Workstation-only package (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626218) should be moved to a "slightly more removed repository"? And where might that be?


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