I think the packaging questions would be best addressed to the packaging folks at packaging@xxxxxxxx.o, and the EPEL stuff I believe would go to epel-devel@. -- Paul On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/14/2015 05:17 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 04:45:32PM -0500, inode0 wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:00:18PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: >>>>> I'm curious to know how *Red Hat* products >>>>> could depend on EPEL packages though EPEL >>>>> is *not* supported by Red Hat. >>>> >>>> This is not a valid assumption from what the OP said. An installation >>>> tool as he suggested could be independent of the product. >>> >>> May I ask what is the legal concern here? Is there a legal issue I'm missing? >>> >>> I just see EPEL policy questions really. >> >> I don't see a clear legal question either, which I think is why >> someone asked previously for some more details. I see a packaging >> guidelines question as well as EPEL policy. > > Correct. I assumed that such policy questions are settled on this list > as well, to large degree at least. Am I wrong? > > -- > Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list > legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
