Thoughts from last meeting

[Kevin Fenzi]

So, at our last meeting: 

http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meetbot/teams/epel/epel.2012-05-23-22.12.html

There seemed to be a fair bit of push to change our policy from: 

"EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors
under 6* directories with the following exception: If the binary rpm is
only shipped in some arches in RHEL, EPEL may ship a package as close
as possible to the RHEL version with a leading package Release of 0.
(ie, libfoo-1.2-0.x) (note that EPEL maintainer must keep up exactly
with the RHEL src.rpm where possible)."

to

"EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors
under 6-Server, 6-Server-ha, 6-Server-optional, 6-Server-lb, except
packages missing in one of our supported arches may be shipped by EPEL,
but must abide by
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages.
Additionally, EPEL will drop packages that overlap with other RHEL
channels/layered products on request of those channel owners"

Is that what folks in that meeting were thinking (I wrote up the
statement that I thought people were agreeing to, I could well have
messed up people's intent)?

So, what do people think of the above? 
Any amendments? Problems that we should note or might sway people to
want to adjust it?

This gives channel owner/layered products people the ability to decide
if overlaping with epel for their specific channel use/case makes sense
or not, or if it would cause problems for them.

Anyhow, thoughts? concerns? 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20120525/8586f91f/attachment.sig>