New Zenoss RPMs
Michael A. Peters
mpeters at mac.com
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