On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Adam Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Adam Miller >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Here's a proposal: >>> >>> Let's make an alteration to our current policy to something of the >>> effect that "we do not ship any package that has an openly available >>> RPM/SRPM located in any child directory of >>> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/ but we are unable to >>> verify that there will be no conflicts as not all channels are >>> published." >>> >>> Beyond that I don't think there is any realistic expectation of us to >>> know what we could potentially conflict with if the information is not >>> publicly available. >>> >>> -AdamM >> >> "EPEL is purely a complimentary add-on repository and does not replace >> packages in RHEL or layered products." >> >> to >> >> "EPEL is purely a complimentary add-on repository and does not replace >> packages in RHEL. [Package conflicts are determined by what is openly >> available from Red Hat's tree (currently located at >> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/) ] >> > <SNIP> > > I like it, +1 here. Should we put this to a vote at the next meeting > or do we want to take a poll here on the mailing list? > > -AdamM >
We should take a poll on the list and finalize on Friday meeting. -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
