Overlap policy v20120615

inode0 inode0 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 17:43:52 UTC 2012

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:27:30 -0500
> inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
>> > Ok, here's another attempt at an overlap policy.
>> >
>> > I'd like to ask folks to comment on it again, but please... I'm a
>> > technical person. I like technical arguments. If you don't like this
>> > policy, please propose an alternate one you like better and tell us
>> > why. Or if you like this policy ok, but changing some wording would
>> > make it much more acceptable, tell us that.
>> >
>> > ok? Here's another stab at it:
>> >
>> > "EPEL6 will not normally ship packages that are shipped already in
>> > the following RHEL channels: os, optional, lb, and ha. Any
>> > overlapping packages must be to provide binary packages on arches
>> > not provided by RHEL ( following:
>> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages
>> > ). Additional channels may be added to this list, based on a
>> > criteria the EPEL sig has yet to decide on."
>> I'm sorry if this has been answered before and I have forgotten the
>> answer but why are the lb and ha bits excluded? Was there a request
>> from the RHEL side to exclude them?
> They were added to our buildsystem a while back because they contained
> dependencies that were used by epel packages. There wasn't a formal
> request that I know of, but it was requested by several maintainers.
> I suppose we could look at dropping them.

No, I don't want them dropped from the build system. I want to know
why piranha can't be packaged by EPEL for example?

> I'm not sure which epel packages that would affect off hand, but can
> find out.
>> I'll let you folks go do your thing again without more interference
>> from me but the inconsistent treatment of these two channels bothers
>> me, in part because I'd like to see things from those channels more
>> than from other Add-On channels. :)
> You would like to see them in epel? or would like to see them not in
> epel since you use those channels and don't want conflicts?

If EPEL can ship rpms from the resilient storage channel I see no
reason not to ship packages from the load balancer channel.

So the build system is os+optional+lb+ha+rs+other stuff I don't recall
if I understood previously but EPEL only prohibits shipping packages
from os+optional+lb+ha. I'm wondering why the restriction against
shipping packages isn't just os+optional here.


More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list