On 28 May 2012 23:04, inode0 <inode0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Well then the only way I can see to meet your point would be to
I'm not sure it is that dire. Do we know if Red Hat cares about EPEL
providing complete RHEL Add-Ons? If they don't then my concern is
As in all cases, there is no Red Hat, there are 4000 different Red
Hatters. We have groups (like IPA, Directory Services, Gluster, and
some others) who rely on EPEL so that they can give customer who want
to see where things are going but don't run Fedora because it is too
far advanced from what they are running. You have other groups who
really don't care and say "Well if someone is running EPEL and our
conflicts, that is their problem." and we have consultants who end up
having to fix those problems. And finally you have EPEL being a
project run on Fedora servers by volunteers. None of us are paid to
work on it, even in Fedora Infrastructure. We do so because it fits
our needs, is useful to us, and for the most part is fun. Remove those
and there is no need for it.
In order for EPEL to build against those channels it would require
changes to Koji and the infrastructure. Some of the channels are not
meant to be run on the same channel (one provides foo-1.2.3 and
another provides foo-2.1.3.) it will require knowing that if you are
building X that you required foo-2 and not foo-1 (or vice versa).
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me." —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd