On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:27:30 -0500
inode0 <inode0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com>
> 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:
> ). 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.
I'm not sure which epel packages that would affect off hand, but can
I'll let you folks go do your thing again without more
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?