On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Michael Stahnke <mastahnke(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Do we stick to our policy as is or do we want to make a
revision?
Just to check these extra channels with nagios in for instance are not available
from CentOS or similar are they? Moving to an expected base below EPEL that
is bigger than CentOS will surly create a problem for many people.
I propose a revision. I propose we don't step on anything in the
AP
channels. Also, if we are having a collision problem with other Red
Hat provided layered channels, a bug could be filed and we could
attempt to resolve it by a lower package number or something. It's
not that I blatantly want to ignore other channels, it's that if we
exclude all of those products in EPEL, EPEL becomes less useful to the
enterprise customers it was aimed at.
>>
>> It seems to me looking in from the outside that you have already made
>> a revision to the policy by including 389, nagios, and possibly other
>> things. Might as well move on the figuring out what the real policy is
>> going to be and correctly documenting it.
389 isn't a policy violation, Red Hat does not ship it. They ship Red
Hat DS, which is based from 389 but not the same thing. I would
assume we could ship spacewalk, freeipa and others in a similar
fashion.
stahnma
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
--
Steve Traylen