New Zenoss RPMs

Michael A. Peters mpeters at
Fri Feb 29 07:52:22 UTC 2008

Christopher Blunck wrote:
> We're extremely interested in making it into EPEL.  The biggest hurdle 
> we face right now is not a technical one; it's a policy/procedure 
> problem.  Simply put:  we (or more specifically I) am unfamiliar with 
> the EPEL/Fedora/RHEL policies and procedures that are used to qualify a 
> project to be included into your baseline.
> I'm trying to make sure that we conform to your policies and procedures, 
> and that we follow all of the guidelines the community offers as 
> criteria for inclusion into the repository.  Sometimes those policies 
> conflict with our existing build system (e.g. the situation with python 
> 2.4).  When that comes up we (I) try to re-engineer our build-system to 
> accommodate your criteria because honestly your procedures are usually 
> best practices.  :)
> Tomorrow I'm going to submit our .spec and .src.rpm for review.  I 
> expect that as a result of that submission we'll have an opportunity to 
> work through some more of details associated with being included into 
> the repository.
> Thanks guys for all your help!  Please give us a chance - we're just 
> trying to understand what we need to do to be included in your repo! :)

I think I figured out the Python issue - the general way something gets 
into EPEL is through Fedora review process first - and since Python 2.4 
is not shipped in a supported release of Fedora, that may be difficult.

Is that what the deal is?

Does EPEL have a second path in for these scenarios?

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list