<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Karanbir Singh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mail-lists@karan.org" target="_blank">mail-lists@karan.org</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
> Good points. Would a separate cbs-tools repo, with a cbs-tools-release<br>
> package in CentOS-Extras be acceptable?<br>
<br>
</span>that might work, but why do we not want centos-extras to overlap EPEL ?<br>
Iirc, it already does this.<br>
<br>
- KB<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><a href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel" target="_blank"></a></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ahh, I forgot we did this. I do see some overlapping packages, but I'm not sure why we do so. It'd be great to keep the overlap minimal IMO.</div><div><br></div><div>That said, it seems that people installing these packages are a *very* small percentage of CentOS users. Is there a good reason to put these packages in a default-enabled repo (extras) for all CentOS installs? I'd think a separate "CBS" repo would allow for a bit more flexibility going forward -- especially if it turns out we have more conflicting packages (with EPEL or whatever other repos).</div><div><br></div><div>-Jeff</div></div></div></div>