Karanbir Singh wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:36:52PM +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
EPEL is interesting and it has a lot of potential, but the fact that they only care about, build for and expect usage on RHEL tends to sort of exclude a lot of external participation in the project. So much so that a @redhat person said that the only aim they have in pushing epel is to they can go tell their customers about it!!
I don't think this is quite fair. At the FUDCon discussion I was at, there was considerable interest in working on -- and with -- CentOS.
This is based on what was told to us at Fosdem 2007.
You were told or heard wrong. (:
We were told this in very exact terms, wasn't much room for any form of interpretation. I am sure you can imagine this wasn't taken very quietly. But, well, this is what we were told.
OK, let me be more clear, then, so there is no further misunderstanding.
EPEL is a *community* effort (just like Fedora/Extras), and as a representative of the project, I can tell you with 100% certainty the statements: * "they only care about, build for and expect usage on RHEL" * "exclude a lot of external participation in the project" * "the only aim they have in pushing epel is to they can go tell their customers about it!!"(1) are unequivocally inaccurate. Doesn't matter who told you or how you perceived the discussion. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Have I mentioned wrong?
Heck I wanted EPEL had used CentOS (infrastructure, target audience) from the get-go, but frankly, it doesn't matter, because EPEL is for RHEL and any/all derivatives, like CentOS. Yes, you heard it, CentOS.
-- Rex
(1) sure rh would like to advertise something like epel, why not, it's cool and great, but it's certainly not their *only* aim.