On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:38:35 +0100 Karanbir Singh <[email protected]> wrote:
> Addressing this from the CentOS point of view, in that lots of CentOS > users consume EPEL as well : We would be happy to bridge that gap and > host stuff like glusterfs directly in CentOS-Extras, which is setup > and enabled by default on all CentOS installs. > > However, I am slightly concerned about this move. Glusterfs is a > single example : there are a lot of things that are shipped by Red > Hat under various variants and layered products that overlap with > content hosted in EPEL - including stuff like puppet, mongodb, lots > of python-* and ruby-* etc; so rather than single out glusterfs and > drop it, please clarify the policy. I agree. This is not just about glusterfs. > My, as an outsider understanding, has been that components unsuiteable > for EPEL include exclusively content hosted at ftp.r.c under the OS/ > dir > - I suspect this is the impression carried forward by many ( if not > most ) people. Yeah, and at launch time of EPEL6 thats pretty much what it was, since there were not really any other additional channels available then. Things have changed over time however. ;) kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
