Overlapping packages: Getting closer to a policy

Bryan J Smith b.j.smith at ieee.org
Mon Jun 11 17:13:51 UTC 2012

Bryan J Smith wrote:
> ...
> That now begs the question if the EL Rebuilds will now just stop
> building them since they are available in EPEL?  If so, now Fedora
> EPEL becomes the concentrator for EL Rebuilds.
> ...
> Expectations are extremely fluid here and I see much harm to the
> entire community-sustaining engineering duality ...
> ...

Understand at some point I'm feeling I'm "alone" in many viewpoints
and wonder if I should bother any further.  I'm surprised many are not
seeing my point, but maybe this final attempt will clear it up.

In all of these posts that I have responded to, in countless scenarios
put forth, I'm seeing one party ignored over and over, and the only
one always ignored.

The paying Red Hat customer who helps fund the sustaining engineering.

In many cases where EPEL build and ships Red Hat packages, even entire
add-ons -- things that were in AS/AP, things that were in CentOS
Extras, etc... -- the "EL Rebuilds" can just move to ship the EPEL
packages instead of having to build their own independent.

So if you are on just a base Red Hat entitlement, or with an EL
Rebuild that moves to remove duplications with EPEL, you have no
conflicts.  But if you are a paying Red Hat customer with add-ons, and
many are, you conflict.

Which goes back to my original issue ...

Marginalizing the paying Red Hat customer in the Fedora Project,
putting them clearly at the back-of-the-line, which is only
self-defeating for the Fedora Project in general.

I think I've beat this like a dead horse at this point.

Bryan J Smith - Professional, Technical Annoyance

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list