On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 15:24 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > 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? >
I think this is clear and concise with reasonable motivation. +1 -AdamM _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
