On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 23:36 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > So yes, EPEL is not going to be treated as part of the same product with > commercial support regardless of it's quality since it is volunteer > work. See EPEL FAQ for more details. And that's the "hard part" when it comes to selling portions of Red Hat on "enabling" EPEL by default. Even "harder" is the very question originally brought up (now re-phrased by myself here) ... How does one mitigate risk of updating RHEL _with_ EPEL? Especially if and when SLAs are involved? Understand everything I'm pointing out is not just to "be a jerk." And it's not just to play "devil's advocate." Hell, I'm not even really trying to "be Red Hat" in asking those question. Of more consideration and direct actions by myself ... Can I get my clients the non-RHEL/non-certified software they need? And without putting any additional burden on Red Hat and their SLAs? That's not being critical of any efforts by Fedora or any 3rd Parties. That's being critical of the risks involved, period, with the utmost consideration of not just my clients, not just Red Hat, but Fedora volunteers. Anyway, time for me to STFU. ;) -- 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
