[CentOS-devel] Shipping an EPEL release
markus.falb at fasel.at
Fri Sep 14 16:02:24 EDT 2012
On 14.9.2012 17:46, Alan Bartlett wrote:
> On 13 September 2012 16:32, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists-XASut8F7j/3YtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> hi guys,
>> One bit of feedback at LinuxCon this year from people was that we should
>> ship epel with a lower barrier to entry. And I have mixed feelings about
>> that. But I wanted to know what everyone else thinks about :
>> 1) Shipping epel-release in CentOS-Extras, so its installable, usable
>> out of the box.
>> 2) Shipping epel-release in the distro itself, with the epel repos's
>> enabled=false. This is the option that most people seem to want, but I
>> am least keen on.
>> 3) do nothing, leave things as they are.
> Apologies for my delayed response. (I'm still in "catch-up" mode.)
> If EPEL were to tag their RPM packages such that the package ownership
> is perfectly clear I would vote for (1). Unfortunately EPEL declines
> to tag their packages, so my vote is thus (3).
Your tag argument seems different from all other arguments :-)
Throughout this thread people are saying 1 or 2 or 3 but what is with
that baseline standards Karanbir mentioned? In my opinion this is the
most important part of this. And the most difficult maybe.
Ofcourse, if we do either (1) or (2) we would need to set some sort of a
baseline standard that allows other repo's to be included as well ( as +
if they meet the baseline standard )
Do not ask if EPEL should be included or not but get clear what the
standards should be for whatever repo. Maybe EPEL or maybe no repo in
the world could catch up with this standards, but well then, lets choose 3.
Sorry if I am not entitled :-)
Kind Regards, Markus Falb
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20120914/c5b1363b/attachment.bin
More information about the CentOS-devel