On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:04:47 -0500 Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:40:56 -0500 > > Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ...snip... > > > >> But in particular, EPEL needs it to work against RHEL if they want > >> to be honest about their own policy statement (again, without > >> waiting for someone to find out the hard way and report it). > > > > EPEL is 'best effort'. If you would like to help us, you are > > welcome to do so. Some things that could help us: > > Then do you mind adding that to the policy statement - that people > can't count on not overwriting base packages? Sure, I can bring that up at our next meeting. kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140902/10613d95/attachment-0007.sig>