Thoughts from last meeting

[inode0]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:45:39 -0500
> inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> I really like this policy.
>
> It still needs a concrete list of packages that are using it, but I
> hope to work on that this weekend if I get time. ;)

I'll add here that I think applying this policy to all layered
products while providing only a single EPEL repository seems quite
nice to me as well. An EPEL user can then use EPEL knowing he/she
won't have unwanted conflicts with any RHEL provided packages,
including those provided by layered products. It has the disadvantage
though that the conflicting packages aren't allowed to run ahead of
RHEL which I'm sure a lot of users would like. Avoiding conflicts is a
higher priority to me than getting version upgrades so I would be
happy with this or a secondary channel for conflicting packages that
did allow version upgrades.

John