Summary/Minutes from todays EPEL meeting - 2010-01-15

[Till Maas]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:52:13PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:07:35 +0100
> Till Maas <opensource at till.name> wrote:
> 
> > Hiyas,
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 03:34:00PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > 
> > > EPEL swimming in the RHEL channels (nirik, 21:23:24)
> > > ACTION: smooge will generate a list of packages that are not
> > > following our new current policy. (nirik, 22:03:43) ACTION:
> > > dgilmore or nirik will block them. (nirik, 22:04:12)
> > 
> > is there now a new policy or will the currenty policy stay ? And what
> > does the policy say?
> 
> Sorry, we should have spelled that out in the summary. 
> 
> EPEL packages must never conflict with packages in RHEL-AP. 
> EPEL packages can conflict with packages in other RHEL channels. 
> EPEL maintainers should be open to communication from RHEL maintainers
> and try and accommodate them by not shipping specific packages, or by
> adjusting the package in EPEL to better handle a conflicting package in
> a channel on a case by case basis. 
> 
> At least I think thats what we all agreed to? 
> Comments/clarifications/etc?

Please explain from which repos RHEL-AP is composed for both RHEL 4 and
5. Maybe I am really the only maintaining packages in EPEL, but I do
only know kind of how CentoOS works and is splitted in Repositories. But
they use RHEL AS afaics, so their package set already seems to differ.

Also the mock config should probably be configured to use only the
packages from CentOS that are supposed to exist in BuildRoots for EPEL.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20100117/e436cf26/attachment.sig>