On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well of course it is arbitrary. Any definition we use is going to be
arbitrary because well there is no rock solid proof that says "this is
RHEL" and "this isn't RHEL". Expecting us to define that definition
when it is clear that even Red Hat has no rock solid definition is
preposterous. So this is our arbitrary line in the sand. It is no
better or worse than if we drew it 2 feet to the left or 2 feet to the
right. However until the tide comes in and washes it away, this is the
one we are looking to use.
True but drawing it two feet to the left treats all the fuzz
consistently. If you are in the Add-Ons your package might be included
in EPEL is much easier to remember and to understand than if you are
in the Add-Ons but you aren't in the LB or the HA Add-Ons then your
package might be included in EPEL.
Consistent, easy to grok as an EPEL/RHEL user, and more flexible for
EPEL packagers.
John