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

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com
Tue May 29 18:37:28 UTC 2012


On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:14:12 -0500
inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> This is messy. :)
> 
> OK. I'm on board now with the anticipated grief source although this
> exact situation causes EPEL users who want to pin their systems to Red
> Hat provided packages when they exist to be caught in the crossfire
> too. My interest is more about protecting those users of EPEL from
> unintended support issues.
> 
> So I think you have a good plan for this case in mind.
> 
> What about the case where RHEL provides it for all arches? Are you
> going to remove it from all arches in EPEL if a channel maintainer
> asks for it to be removed?

I would say no, since we aren't doing that in base RHEL... but I guess
there could be some case. I just don't know off hand. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20120529/4a1bbe78/attachment.sig>


More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list