On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:27:30 -0500 > inode0 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Fenzi <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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." >> >> I'm sorry if this has been answered before and I have forgotten the >> answer but why are the lb and ha bits excluded? Was there a request >> from the RHEL side to exclude them? > > They were added to our buildsystem a while back because they contained > dependencies that were used by epel packages. There wasn't a formal > request that I know of, but it was requested by several maintainers. > > I suppose we could look at dropping them.
No, I don't want them dropped from the build system. I want to know why piranha can't be packaged by EPEL for example? > I'm not sure which epel packages that would affect off hand, but can > find out. > >> I'll let you folks go do your thing again without more interference >> from me but the inconsistent treatment of these two channels bothers >> me, in part because I'd like to see things from those channels more >> than from other Add-On channels. :) > > You would like to see them in epel? or would like to see them not in > epel since you use those channels and don't want conflicts? If EPEL can ship rpms from the resilient storage channel I see no reason not to ship packages from the load balancer channel. So the build system is os+optional+lb+ha+rs+other stuff I don't recall if I understood previously but EPEL only prohibits shipping packages from os+optional+lb+ha. I'm wondering why the restriction against shipping packages isn't just os+optional here. John _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
