On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Dennis Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 07 November 2008 12:10:08 pm Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Ok loaded term but I was wondering if we could work with spacewalk, >> ipa, ds, etc to support their work by including at least a >> spacewalk-release or similar item. This would allow us to 'test' the >> waters of working closer with the other layered upstreams. Basically >> instead of having to hunt around for every different repository, we >> work with the upstream project ot have a signed release that works >> with the EPEL releases. >> >> Anyway.. back to dealing with local stuff.. I figured I should fire it >> off before I forget. > Other than completely violating fedora's guidelines that EPEL is subject to. > I don't think its a good idea. It makes it too easy to not do the work needed > to get things into fedora/EPEL >
The issue I am trying to deal with is several issues 1) we have RH-upstream-product-0.X needing something that RHEL-4/5 do not ship in apache etc Its going to happen because thats just how software projects go. 2) we have stuff in EPEL that would replace a layered product. I mean if we put spacewalk in and it replaces something from RHN-supported-product. I really am not worried about sales.. someone's going to make rebuilds available somewhere but I am trying to work out a way that someone is not going to clobber themselves by having a RH product and enabling EPEL on the box. 3) product timeline does not match up with EPEL timeline. This happens a lot with the cobbler/koan/func stuff where they are implementing fixes but I could see it happening in say IPA etc. where they have a midmonth release or 'just-a-bugfix' upgrade. > fedora-ds is in fedora I suggest that you ask richm to build fedora-ds into > EPEL. freeipa is in fedora also. we should talk with rcrit to get freeipa > branched and built for EPEL it will require fedora-ds to be there first. > > we should get what we can of spacewalk in except for the bits needing oracle > since they dont meet the guidelines yet. Spacewalk has said from the start > that it will work to get in EPEL. as to other layered products we have always > said that it will be up to the individual team if they wish to have their > product in EPEL. > In no way am I saying to bring in/enable a product that doesn't want to be there.. I am sorry my writing led you to believe that. > I personally feel that having the product in EPEL will help not hinder sales. > those people who wont pay for support will still not pay for support. those > on the fence may deploy the product because of the easier route to > installation and decide that once installed and in production they need > support. Those customers who are willing to pay and want support will > continue to do so. > > Dennis > > _______________________________________________ > Spacewalk-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel > -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
