So, at our last meeting: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meetbot/teams/epel/epel.2012-05-23-22.12.html
There seemed to be a fair bit of push to change our policy from: "EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors under 6* directories with the following exception: If the binary rpm is only shipped in some arches in RHEL, EPEL may ship a package as close as possible to the RHEL version with a leading package Release of 0. (ie, libfoo-1.2-0.x) (note that EPEL maintainer must keep up exactly with the RHEL src.rpm where possible)." to "EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors under 6-Server, 6-Server-ha, 6-Server-optional, 6-Server-lb, except packages missing in one of our supported arches may be shipped by EPEL, but must abide by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages. Additionally, EPEL will drop packages that overlap with other RHEL channels/layered products on request of those channel owners" Is that what folks in that meeting were thinking (I wrote up the statement that I thought people were agreeing to, I could well have messed up people's intent)? So, what do people think of the above? Any amendments? Problems that we should note or might sway people to want to adjust it? This gives channel owner/layered products people the ability to decide if overlaping with epel for their specific channel use/case makes sense or not, or if it would cause problems for them. Anyhow, thoughts? concerns? kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
