On 10/18/2013 10:54 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
Would it be against the guidelines to move to packaging it (the software itself, not a repo file) in Fedora/EPEL as glusterfs-community?
I'm sure it is against the guidelines. Under any name it'd still be shipping a set of RPMs that conflict with RPMs in the RHEL base channel — or will be soon.
And just to be clear, it's already been made clear that a repo file is not acceptable.
Now I'm asking if I can morph the packaging (for EPEL) from several glusterfs-*.RPMs to a single glusterfs-community-doc (or something similar) RPM containing a README. This is instead of completely withdrawing "community glusterfs" from EPEL.
-- Kaleb -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
