Overlap policy v20120615

Orion Poplawski orion at cora.nwra.com
Fri Jun 15 19:26:06 UTC 2012

On 06/15/2012 12:54 PM, inode0 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion at cora.nwra.com> wrote:
>> On 06/15/2012 11:43 AM, inode0 wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>>> 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?
>> Well, piranha is shipped by ScientificLinux (and probably CentOS),
>> presumably because the srpm is in 6Server, so you would end up with
>> conflicts there.  If you are a paying RedHat customer and want support,
>> presumably you would purchase the relevant channel as well to get piranha?
> Oh, I missed the EPEL does not conflict with packages shipped by CentOS rule?!
> Some paying RHEL customers use the two packages for LB from CentOS now
> and would rather use them from EPEL. This is not a logical reason to
> treat lb and ha differently from anything else CentOS might ship. Not
> to mention RHEL users who get puppet from EPEL when they could pay Red
> Hat for that too. My problem is mostly just that this seems completely
> arbitrary to me.

Well, the reason I contribute and maintain packages in EPEL is to support my 
CentOS and Scientific Linux servers.  I suspect that is true for a lot of 
other EPEL contributors as well, so I don't think that is a constituency to 
brush off lightly.  And I suspect the original "srpms found in 6Server, etc" 
rule was made very much with the EL rebuilds in mind.

I also don't see a terribly big difference between pulling packages from 
CentOS or from EPEL.  Wouldn't they have to be the same anyways?

Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder Office                  FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane                       orion at nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301                   http://www.nwra.com

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list