[CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]
Kaleb Keithley
kkeithle at redhat.comThu Jan 9 16:30:59 UTC 2020
- Previous message: [CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]
- Next message: [CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:55 AM Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 06:35:13AM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > How is that different than just building them in EPEL and being done with > > it. > > > > Has something changed in the EPEL rules that would now allow us to ship > > packages that conflict with the packages in base RHEL or a RHEL product > > like RHGS (GlusterFS) or RHCS (Ceph)? > > Yes -- this should be possible with modularity. You'd ship the conflicting > packages as an alternate stream. No default streams allowed, but people > could > opt in. And presumably there could exist media where that stream is enabled > by default. > It almost certainly is possible with modularity, but that's a big chunk to bite off. More than I have time to tackle at the moment I'm afraid. AFAIK Niels (ndevos, my "partner" for Gluster, and to a lesser extent NFS-Ganesha) has no desire, or time, to do anything with modularization. -- Kaleb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20200109/bf82a976/attachment-0002.html>
- Previous message: [CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]
- Next message: [CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list