

Re: Why don't they "provide it universally in RHEL?" -- WAS: Thoughts from last meeting

inode0 wrote:
> The context here is important.

Then I will try to understand and not read too much into it.  My
apologies for my prior, as I did tangent reading too much into it,
outside of your context.  At the same time, some of my comments still
do apply.

> I am questioning the policy of allowing Red Hat channel owners a veto power
> over EPEL maintainers in cases of a package Red Hat provides for some
> architectures but not for others.

Unfortunately, and I'm not trying to read too much into anything, but
where does that view stop in Fedora?  There is a thin line, especially
in x86.  I've already run into it several times.  I'm just pointing
out my experiences.  I would have to say some of the biggest
nightmares at a few enterprises have been the interjection of
incorrect x86 packages into x86-64.

That is, of course, if x86 was the consideration.  If not, my
apologies.  But if it is, I do understand how there may be concern
with consideration for or even by Red Hat customers.  There may be the
further support or service validity to why.  Giving them an option to
interject into Fedora might be a necessary move.  If I read this
correctly, it would allow the issue to be raised, and it would need to
be raised, not the other way around.

I.e., Fedora doesn't go looking.  It's up to others to raise it.

Again, my apologies if I am off-base.  Given your re-explanation, and
my over-stepping prior, I just wanted to say I understand your point.
But I still have concerns.

-- Bryan
