On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:22 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 03:12:25PM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > Asking us to build them in EPEL or Copr is a step backwards. > > Copr is intentionally the wild west, so I understand that -- that's just a > stop-gap suggestion. But for EPEL: what would it take so having CentOS > SIG artifacts in EPEL *wouldn't* feel like a step backwards? I think that > should be a goal. > 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)? It also doesn't solve being able to ship multiple versions in separate repos, e.g. gluster-5, gluster-6, and gluster-7. (I want to call those Streams, but I think Streams is used for something different.) -- Kaleb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20200108/753f6460/attachment-0007.html>