On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:14:12 -0500 inode0 <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is messy. :) > > OK. I'm on board now with the anticipated grief source although this > exact situation causes EPEL users who want to pin their systems to Red > Hat provided packages when they exist to be caught in the crossfire > too. My interest is more about protecting those users of EPEL from > unintended support issues. > > So I think you have a good plan for this case in mind. > > What about the case where RHEL provides it for all arches? Are you > going to remove it from all arches in EPEL if a channel maintainer > asks for it to be removed?
I would say no, since we aren't doing that in base RHEL... but I guess there could be some case. I just don't know off hand. kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
