Re: Conversations with centos-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/18/2010 11:10 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:40:28 -0600
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I sent a ping a while back on putting in a weight of 2000 for EPEL-6
> and the general consensus was that it did not matter to them what we
> did. [More or less.] So I would say that when we update the
> epel-release next time to put it in the epel.repo. [And make sure we
> announce it for partners.]
And if we do that, we should be able to clone RHEL Workstation packages
(the ones not in RHEL Server) and put them EPEL without causing issues
for RHEL Workstation users...
Shouldn't we?
I'm of the opinion that we should still not do this, except for extreme
situations. EPEL was not meant to be an end-run around RHEL packages or
RHEL pricing, and while we could technically do it and have less chance
of hurting people's systems, I don't think EPEL is the place for that.
There is plenty of room for a slightly more removed repository from EPEL
where one could provide updated versions of packages.
- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkyWVooACgkQ4v2HLvE71NXG/gCfbsbQuywNSVXOWsq8Z8MJk2rV
vbAAnionBvNavd0QrAKaV8OJRrmYfZIA
=OuCE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----