Let's try to get this flushed out in time for our EPEL Steering
Committee meeting this Friday.
I think we've figured out most of the pitfalls that might happen. I
believe this is what the discussion ended up with.
The current guidelines [1] say:
EPEL packages should only enhance and never disturb the Enterprise Linux
distributions they were built for. Thus packages from EPEL should never
replace packages from the target base distribution - including those on the
base distribution as well as layered products; kernel-modules further are
not allowed, as they can disturb the base kernel easily.
We propose adding:
In EPEL 8 or later, it is permitted to have module streams which contain
packages with alternate versions to those provided in RHEL. These packages
may be newer, built with different options, or even older to serve
compatibility needs. These MUST NOT be the default stream -- in every
case, explicit user action must be required to opt in to these
versions. If the
RHEL package is in a RHEL module, then the EPEL module must have the same
name as the RHEL module. Any exceptions to the module name must be
approved by the EPEL Steering Committee.
Does this sound correct?
I'd like to discuss/vote on this at this weeks committee meeting.
Troy
[1] -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Packaging_Guidelines_and_Policies_for_EPEL
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
