On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 18:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Good thing you aren't and Daniel Riek is ;-). I'm just an outsider. I have no idea what Red Hat's foci are. I can only make ignorant assumptions. ;) > Seriously though, the SLA might be a hurdle and this is one of the > reasons I clarified it in the EPEL FAQ and some notes can be added > within the repository file and other places too. I know. At the same time, if I was a Red Hat consultant on client site, I wouldn't have to deal with the pressure of a SLA only to find out there was breakage caused by EPEL. I'm not saying EPEL will "break," but from the "anal power," there is that "risk." I'm not trying to knock the outstanding work of the greater Fedora Project, of which I have been signing praises for a long, long time -- ever since Red Hat Linux 10 Beta became Fedora [1] Test. I'm a well-known Red Hat apologist (and Novell apologist, etc... -- much to my own demise at the hands of some very unethical people and illegal actions). > With the current state, EPEL has low visibility for RHEL users and we > will be discussing that with product management folks. Understand. Sorry if my commentary caused you any grief or issues on your end. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
