Thoughts from last meeting

[inode0]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 04:45:39PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Anyhow, thoughts? concerns?
>>
>> As an EPEL consumer I find this all rather confusing. I don't want to
>> have to know which layered products are protected and which aren't. I
>> think I'd rather live with a simpler uniform policy regarding layered
>> products.
>>
> As a non-administrator of RHEL I find it confusing too.  I don't know what
> fee structure and other non-repository divisions occur between base RHEL and
> layered products and whether they are the same for all layered products or
> only some.

The nature of layered products is changing as RHEL is offered as more
of an a la carte product now. While EPEL including something like
puppet isn't such a big concern to me as it is a small component of a
larger offering from Red Hat, EPEL providing piranha + ipvsadm which
comprise the Load Balancer Add-On is a much bigger concern to me. I
don't really think EPEL should put Red Hat in the position of having
to ask for it to be removed. So unless we know that including such
things is fine with Red Hat in advance I think we should exclude them
as EPEL providing complete "layered products" or "Red Hat Enterprise
Linux Add-Ons" seems like crossing a line we shouldn't cross to me.

> So instead of going into specifics of what layered products should be
> included or not included, I'd rather post the things that I'd like
> a decision to allow:
>
> 1) We must be able to build against a version of the package -- either in
>   RHEL or in EPEL.  This is a deal breaker to me.  If we can't use the
>   layered products in the buildsystem then we can't exclude them from EPEL.

Can you say that last sentence a different way. I can't really make sense of it.

John