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

Re: Overlapping packages: Getting closer to a policy

On 06/09/2012 12:37 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 June 2012 15:50, inode0<inode0 gmail com>  wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Stephen John Smoogen<smooge gmail com>  wrote:
On 8 June 2012 12:14, inode0<inode0 gmail com>  wrote:

Really confused by this. LB and HA are useful but they are not
available to everyone who has a basic RHEL subscription currently.

Well they seem to be available to the people who thought they had a
basic subscription. What channels do you see with a basic

None on this list of Add-On subscriptions.


I'd have to double check what you actually do get because it often
includes lots of odd-ball channels.

Oh cool. That gives us the matrix of what is available with Red hat
Server. Thanks inode0

We are building against Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server which comes
with the following add-ons

High Availability
Resilient Storage
Load Balancer
Scalable File System
High Performance Network
Smart Management

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The table at http://www.redhat.com/products/enterprise-linux-add-ons/#features_availability lists which add-ons are available for Red Hat Enterprise Server. Available here is not 'included', but more something like 'compatible' and or supported combinations of add-ons.

The additional costs for each add-on is listed here:
- http://www.redhat.com/resourcelibrary/articles/articles-red-hat-enterprise-linux-purchasing-guide

A quote from that page:
"You can add optional functionality to a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server subscription. The following prices are in addition to the price of the underlying Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server subscription."

I think it is important to make a difference between add-on (like High Availability to Red Hat Enterprise Server) and a product (like Red Hat Satellite). IMHO it makes sense to allow EPEL packages with (Build)Requires from the Add-Ons, but not from the products. Products can/may contain different versions (more restrictions) of packages than that are available in the Add-On channels.

Some examples:
RHEL customers that do not have the required add-ons (like HA), would have dependency problems for packages from EPEL that require the cluster infrastructure. I doubt that these packages are useful without the cluster bits. RHEL-clones can provide the add-ons as part of their standard distribution, no dependency issues there.

On most (all?) Red Hat Products (like Red Hat Satellite and Storage) customers are not supposed to install additional applications. The products are mostly contained within their own installation. It makes little sense to add EPEL to these servers where a product has been installed.

Therefore, it is possible to allow puppet, glusterfs and the like in EPEL. These packages are part of Red Hat products, and not available in the add-ons. The standard Red Hat Enterprise Server can be enhanced with non-conflicting packages.

Does this make sense to others as well?


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