On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:14:12 -0500
inode0 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> This is messy.
> OK. I'm on board now with the anticipated grief source although this
> exact situation causes EPEL users who want to pin their systems to Red
> Hat provided packages when they exist to be caught in the crossfire
> too. My interest is more about protecting those users of EPEL from
> unintended support issues.
> So I think you have a good plan for this case in mind.
> What about the case where RHEL provides it for all arches? Are you
> going to remove it from all arches in EPEL if a channel maintainer
> asks for it to be removed?
I would say no, since we aren't doing that in base RHEL... but I guess
there could be some case. I just don't know off hand.
epel-devel-list mailing list