EPEL acceptance policy

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 3/12/07, Tim Burke <tburke at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was just checking out the acceptance policy listed here:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies/PackageMaintenanceAndUpdates
>
> There's a few acceptance criteria that I think it would help to
> blatantly spell out there.  Perhaps this is really nit points and could
> be safely assumed, but I think it doesn't hurt to spell things out.
>
> I think the intention is to not ship in EPEL stuff which RH already
> ships. Specifically this is stated as: "Thus packages from EPEL should
> never replace packages from the target base distribution"
>
> I'm wondering if people may misinterpret that to think that things not
> on the base RHEL isos are fair game for replacement.  Layered products
> from RH which are delivered separately from the OS come to mind.
> Another example would be packages which are only intended for certain
> release variants.  For example, the GFS cluster components are not
> available to desktop / client configurations - server only.
>
> Tying to think of an alternative recommended wording:
>
> "thus packages from EPEL should never replace packages delivered by Red
> Hat - including those on the base distribution as well as layered products."
>

Well the one problem I can see that is a bootstrap problem.. if RHEL
picks up some subset of EPEL packages for its own subchannel. However,
that is really nitpicking something to death.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"