Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 02.08.2007 10:08, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
>
>> Just wondering: would it be fine for EPEL to ship for example
>> mysql-connector-odbc under a different name
>> ("mysql-connector-odbc-epel")? Then we would not replace packages from
>> layered products, just provide something (without support) that's also
>> provided by a layered product (which has support).
>>
> That depends on how comfortable you are letting EPEL be a way to bypass
> a product requirement essentially.
>
Complicated topic.
> If it is for libraries it might still be required and useful for other
> reasons
>
Exactly. Not having some libs just because some layered product ships
them as well could be problematic for EPEL and hurt it a lot.
> but what about say fedora directory server in EPEL?
>
I'm unsure myself about this one. A *short* version and just a fragment
of the thoughts in my head: people pay Red Hat for the support, but some
people might just want the support for the OS, but not for a specific
software they install. Should we try to force those people into the
existing model (users nevertheless can just rebuild the Fedora-DS or
RHEL-DS SRPM) or do we simply offer what we have and let them chose if
they want payed support or not?
How about using the yum protectbase plugin ? With
it, it would be
trivial to make sure we never replace core/layered/other important products
--
Manuel Wolfshant linux registered user #131416
IT manager NoBug Consulting SRL
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=40317