On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Michael Stahnke <mastahnke(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Could we add this to the next steering committee meeting? Here are
the issues:
I am running a 102 fever but can't sleep so I hope this is lucid. The
next scheduled meeting is the 18th at some time UTC my brain is not
parsing.
1. "Layered" products, such as cluster server, ship some
support
packages like perl modules, etc. Should those be allowed in EPEL?
They are not part of core RHEL. IMHO, as much software as possible
should be available for everybody. At my place of employment, if I
need a package and it's not in EPEL, I then have to build/maintain my
own, which is what EPEL hopes to stop. I could see the EPEL committee
denying some 'core' packages of each layered channel, (such as RHDS
core packages, cluster server core packages for RHEL 4, etc).
I would prefer to see it in EPEL in some form. The issue is how we
structure it and keep it working. [Well Joe needs perl-foo-baz-1.1 and
Bill needs perl-foo-baz-1.8.. ]
2. Even competing with layered products seems bad. If we would
like
RHX to have the same packages as in EPEL but be able to buy support
for them, shouldn't RH do the same? That way the software is
available to those who would like to preview it, use it with CentOS,
Scientific, etc. I realize this contradictory to what EPEL started
with, but our goal should be software to everybody, at least that's
what I think.
I agree but I think we are going to need to change to meet this... how
we do this will be where we need to talk with the community and get
some ideas.
3. What about products such as Free IPA vs IPA, Fedora DS vs RHDS,
Spacewalk vs Satellite etc? If there is a fully open offering, can we
put it in EPEL and not officially be 'conflicting' with the RH channel
for it?
I think that if its in Fedora, and does not conflict/update it can go
into EPEL so OpenJDK, FreeIPA, FedoraDS, Spacewalk, could meet that
criteria.
4. Firmware packages that are on the supplemental EL discs. To me,
this is just to make some hardware work, shouldn't that be easily
available? As an enterprise customer, it'd be a lot easier to have it
in EPEL (which I am going to use anyway) than to have to
download/import the supplemental disc.
This gets harder.. what is the distribution license on the firmware
packages? Even if its meant to make some hardware work.. I know this
will cause all kinds of "why can't we hack it.. its not free and cant
be in Fedora stuff." And I think that will fall under the if its not
in fedora its not in EPEL.
I am sure there are more questions and conflicts, and I don't
want to
stomp on Red Hat, but I would like to make EPEL as usable and complete
as possible.
PS I won't be the EPEL meeting Monday.
I had it marked for the 18th. Is Monday not working for people?
stahnma
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"