-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 El Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:41:56 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> escribió: > On 09/18/2013 04:14 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@xxxxxxxxx) said: > >> On 09/18/2013 01:24 PM, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > >>> I'm totally on board with moving away from Bugzilla if there are > >>> serious issues with using it. However, EPEL is a Fedora SIG, not > >>> something run by RHEL. And I would totally expect it to be > >>> supported by the Fedora Project. > >> All the packages already exist and are available in Fedora > > Not entirely, there are some packages that are only in EPEL. Aside > > from that... > > > >> Epel has nothing to do with Fedora absolutely nothing. > > If I'm understanding you, you're claiming it *should* have nothing > > to do with Fedora. However, it clearly does currently - it was > > started as a Fedora project in 2007. It uses the Fedora > > infrastructure *intentionally* as an easy way to share resources, > > share packaging information, share accounts for packagers, share > > certain policies, etc. > > I can see how and why it had been started as Fedora project for and > at the convenience of RH ( and it's clones ) as opposed to actually > get the EPEL maintainers to maintain that same component for a longer > period of time in Fedora as an part of an LTS release. Actually Mike Mcgrath and I started it to support and share what we needed for use in Infrastructure and we wanted to share that work, we also saw that there was a general need for something like it for general use. > > > > Changing this state and severing the relationship would seem to > > imply 1) telling the EPEL community they're no longer welcome 2) > > describing how they could do something better by separating. I've > > not seen a compelling argument for #2 yet, nor a reason the > > currently relationship is holding back progress in a way that would > > require the drastic measures of #1. > > Given that you could not see a compelling argument changing the > command prompt to long hostname for the benefit of administrators or > if as you expressed it would take up to much rel-estate space and > then propose to do the opposite and remove the short hostname for it, > which would have in turn removed the confusing part that the short > hostnames are and in turn forced administrators to run command to > realise which host they are working ( which they have to do anyway > with regards to short hostnames ) I can understand why that you dont > see a compallance in the argument I'm making but that wont change the > fact that the spec file are being cluttered for epel or rhel > compatibility, something those maintainers should be keep in a > separated branch away from Fedora. > > Btw it makes perfect sense that EPEL and RHEL share the same bugzilla > instance but not Fedora. I can't say I see a compelling reason for long hostnames, administrators can use config management to set it if they choose. As to spec files a large part of the value for everyone is that the spec files work between Fedora, RHEL and its clones. but that's off topic, I really dont see any compelling reasons to move off of Red Hats bugzilla today. Down the road that may change. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on the options. We should also document the pain points, and try to get them fixed. I really don't think there is a better option out there than bugzilla, Maybe we can work with other distros/projects and start a new one from the ground up, but that would be a massive undertaking. Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlI8n7QACgkQkSxm47BaWfdEbQCdHiCrLLdTHlUu0g2TCbdkCV9e 5bkAn2bAbiGb4bay6GUKOUiYp02q1B90 =bKOg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
