On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Niels de Vos devos@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Bryan J Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:
Niels de Vos devos@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I think it is important to make a difference between add-on (like High Availability to Red Hat Enterprise Server) and a product (like Red Hat Satellite). IMHO it makes sense to allow EPEL packages with (Build)Requires from the Add-Ons,
Why not just use the add-ons? Especially when they have clearly been in Advanced Server, AS and Advanced Platform and, therefore, EL Rebuilds? Why does EPEL have to now ship them, causing yet another set of conflicts with both Red Hat and EL Rebuild stacks?
Advanced Server contained the High-Availability bits, hence these packages could not be included in EPEL. But, it was okay to have (Build)Requires on the HA packages in EPEL.
My suggestion was to keep it this way. The difference is that Advanced Server is not available any longer, and RHEL-6 introduced Add-Ons. I think we can still see the Add-Ons as components of the RHEL Server subscriptions. Not everyone who uses EPEL, had access to the HA (and similar channels), that does not change with the Add-Ons. If someone wants to use RHEL and packages from EPEL that require certain Add-Ons, requiring a subscription (with access to these channels) makes sense to me. If RHEL-clones provide all the requirements (like they probably did already), they won't be affected either.
I am not al all not suggesting that EPEL starts shipping all the packages from all the Add-Ons. I am sorry it came across like that. Personally I see all the Add-Ons (from http://www.redhat.com/products/enterprise-linux-add-ons/#features_availabili...) as part of a RHEL Server installation, and do not like the idea of having the same (and potentially conflicting) packages from EPEL.
The difference is something built with a dependency on HA bits then would just pull in those dependencies from the user's subscription, now they would just have broken dependencies for RHEL users without the Add-Ons. I don't have any objection at all to treating Add-Ons differently than we treat other Red Hat delivered products like Satellites or Directory and Certificate services. I just don't want to ship things with broken dependencies for RHEL users, so I would actually prefer EPEL also ship any dependencies from the Add-Ons that arise in a way to not conflict with RHEL users who already use those Add-Ons. It seems there is a good plan for doing such a thing already.
John