On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 04:45:39PM -0500, inode0 wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Anyhow, thoughts? concerns? > > As an EPEL consumer I find this all rather confusing. I don't want to > have to know which layered products are protected and which aren't. I > think I'd rather live with a simpler uniform policy regarding layered > products. > As a non-administrator of RHEL I find it confusing too. I don't know what fee structure and other non-repository divisions occur between base RHEL and layered products and whether they are the same for all layered products or only some.
So instead of going into specifics of what layered products should be included or not included, I'd rather post the things that I'd like a decision to allow: 1) We must be able to build against a version of the package -- either in RHEL or in EPEL. This is a deal breaker to me. If we can't use the layered products in the buildsystem then we can't exclude them from EPEL. 2) It is highly desirable that contributors who do not have access to RHEL can still build and test their packages on their own systems. We've pointed mock at CentOS repositories for this purpose in the past. If CentOS provides the layered products as well, there's no change to the status quo. If CentOS doesn't provide them or only provides a subset, then we need to think about how much this degradation affects contributors. 3) Users should be able to use our packages. If someone has bought RHEL but hasn't paid for support for a layered product, will they still be able to use our Foo package that depends upon puppet that's provided by a layered product? If a user runs CentOS will they be able to use our Foo package that depends on puppet that is provided by a layered product? -Toshio
pgp3NK0d9kM86.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
