On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:11:28 -0800
Joe Julian <joe(a)julianfamily.org> wrote:
On February 18, 2016 11:56:54 AM PST, Kevin Fenzi
<kevin(a)scrye.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700
>Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...snip...
>
>> 2. Packages in EPEL will never replace or conflict with packages in
>> the base Enterprise Linux.
>
>What does that mean? If we want it to be what we have now:
>
>"Packages in EPEL will never replace or conflict with packages in the
>RHEL channels we build EPEL against. Adding or removing channels is
>done by the steering committee"
>
Even that's not always feasible, like when RHEL suddenly started
including the RHGS-only gluster client.
True. I recall someone getting on my case about the 'never' when
there's often overlap because RHEL does something and we don't notice
it right away. So, how about:
"EPEL strives to provide packages that do not conflict with or
replace the packages in the RHEL channels that it builds against. From
time to time such packages may be in the collection, but will be
removed in a timely manner"
There's 0 chance we can always not be conflicting unless we somehow
knew in advance any changes and had things ready for them when they
changed.
kevin