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

Re: Why don't they "provide it universally in RHEL?" -- WAS: Thoughts from last meeting

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Bryan J Smith <b j smith ieee org> wrote:
> inode0 wrote:
>> The context here is important.
> Then I will try to understand and not read too much into it.  My
> apologies for my prior, as I did tangent reading too much into it,
> outside of your context.  At the same time, some of my comments still
> do apply.
>> I am questioning the policy of allowing Red Hat channel owners a veto power
>> over EPEL maintainers in cases of a package Red Hat provides for some
>> architectures but not for others.
> Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to read too much into anything, but
> where does that view stop in Fedora?  There is a thin line, especially
> in x86.  I've already run into it several times.  I'm just pointing
> out my experiences.  I would have to say some of the biggest
> nightmares at a few enterprises have been the interjection of
> incorrect x86 packages into x86-64.

I'm going to substitute EPEL for Fedora in your comments here. Fedora
can package anything it wants to package that satisfies its packaging
guidelines which don't have any restrictions based on what Red Hat
chooses to include in any product. EPEL on the other hand chooses to
make further restrictions about what subset of Fedora packages can be
included in EPEL repositories and those do include considerations
about content Red Hat provides to enterprise customers.

If it isn't clear I'm not advocating including these oddball packages
and it is completely ok with me to not do so. My vision for EPEL has
always been that an enterprise user could enable the default EPEL
repository and have no conflicts with *any* supported package obtained
from Red Hat's product line.

> That is, of course, if x86 was the consideration.  If not, my
> apologies.  But if it is, I do understand how there may be concern
> with consideration for or even by Red Hat customers.  There may be the
> further support or service validity to why.  Giving them an option to
> interject into Fedora might be a necessary move.  If I read this
> correctly, it would allow the issue to be raised, and it would need to
> be raised, not the other way around.
> I.e., Fedora doesn't go looking.  It's up to others to raise it.

Sure, and if Red Hat has an issue with what EPEL is providing they can
let us know about it. And I have confidence that the EPEL community
would consider the concerns of Red Hat and weigh them against the
benefit of the package to EPEL users and make a responsible decision
about how to proceed. Let's not forget that the reason the package
that might be questioned is in EPEL is because some enterprise
customer wanted it.


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