Thoughts from last meeting

[Jan-Frode Myklebust]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:25:58PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
> 
> My general preference as a consumer of both RHEL and EPEL would be in order:
> 
> 1 - EPEL does not conflict with RHEL + Layered Products (all Layered Products)
> 
> I know that holds some important things back that lots of folks benefit from.
> 
> 2 - EPEL does not conflict with RHEL base packages (base being loosely
> defined as what comes with a standard RHEL subscription, so would in
> the case of RHEL6 include the optional channel for example).

<snip>

> I would be really happy also with EPEL doing 1 for its primary
> repository but also providing a secondary repository where all Layered
> Products can be trumped by EPEL versions. Separating those conflicts
> into a secondary repo would be a big help to EPEL's downstream users I
> think.

I completely agree. Secondary repo which would be disabled by default
holding packages that could conflict with RH-channels would be ideal for
our usage. It would also open up for actively including stuff that's in
RHEL layered products -- for unsupported usage. 

I also wish for an epel-bleeding-edge repo, that could contain latest
upstream versions of select packages that are in base rhel. We f.ex. pick the
latest dovecot from the package-db and build for EL6 locally. Having this
in an EPEL-channel were we could get more users/tester/quality would be great.


  -jf