Ok, here's another attempt at an overlap policy. I'd like to ask folks to comment on it again, but please... I'm a technical person. I like technical arguments. If you don't like this policy, please propose an alternate one you like better and tell us why. Or if you like this policy ok, but changing some wording would make it much more acceptable, tell us that.
ok? Here's another stab at it: "EPEL6 will not normally ship packages that are shipped already in the following RHEL channels: os, optional, lb, and ha. Any overlapping packages must be to provide binary packages on arches not provided by RHEL ( following: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages ). Additional channels may be added to this list, based on a criteria the EPEL sig has yet to decide on." kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
