On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:06:31AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > 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. > I think that would be acceptable. It's content rather than code so falls under this section of the fedora packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content Since this is for epel only, you probably want to talk to the other epel maintainers about whether they have any issue with this plan but I don't think it violates any Fedora Packaging Guidelines. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpnuu3XIEkVK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
