Need to move Monday meeting

Michael Stahnke mastahnke at
Sat Sep 13 21:25:21 UTC 2008

2008/9/13 Kevin Fenzi <kevin at>:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:42:22 +0200
> fedora at (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>> On 13.09.2008 17:57, Jon Stanley wrote:
>> > On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
>> > <fedora at> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'd much prefer to ship the newer libs or those 'core' apps in
>> >> question in parallel to the packages from EL. That was discussed
>> >> for speex (a newer one than the one in EL5 is needed by recent
>> >> asterisk versions iirc) and might solve the problems.
>> > Me too, except I foresee one problem with this.  Joe User enables
>> > the EPEL repo, and is ignorant of the fact that it now includes
>> > updates to packages included in base RHEL. [...]
>> No, that's not what I meant ;-)
>> Sorry, should have been more clear in my mail. With "in parallel to
>> the packages from EL" I meant: EL continues to ship for example speex
>> as speex-1.0.5-4.el5_1.1, and we ship speex 1.2 as "speex12-1.2-4" or
>> something with its contents in a special path. Of cause all apps in
>> EPEL that need that speex then need special treatment to look in that
>> special path for speex.
> Yeah, although even that can be difficult if there are things that are
> not parallel installable easily, and filtering deps could be tricky
> there as well in case the two packages provide some of the same
> things. ;(
> I'm in general against doing any layered products or the like... I
> don't think we have enough interested people to manage such a thing and
> I think it would cause a lot more complexity and confusion. ;(
> I'm happy to be convinced otherwise though. ;)
>> Cu
>> knurd
> kevin
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at
I think several of the layered products will work out of the box.
Spacewalk should, as it was designed to hit EL5, (not that it's in
Fedora yet).  Directory server would too. I am not so sure about IPA
or Dogtag, but I think that if RH is offering it as a layered product
on top of EL4/5 it seems to me like it would work in EPEL.  That's not
really the issue I wanted to discuss anyway, it's more "should we
provide the open copy of Spacewalk/Dogtag/IPA/Directory?"  I mean, RH
obviously wants customers to pay for these things.  A counter-argument
to that is that if we don't provide them, somebody else will.  Also, I
think Enterprise customers (including me) understand the value in the
RH subscription when required.  So, I don't really think RH would lose
money on the deal.  I am not sure though.  To me, it feels like
offering the layered products in EPEL is like CentOS vs RHEL.  If you
need support/subscription, you know what to do.


More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list