[CentOS] Re: Mixing RPMforge and EPEL (Was: EPEL repo)

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Mon Jul 30 10:38:00 UTC 2007


On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:29:11PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Dag Wieers wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, JC Júnior wrote:
> > 
> >> I received a message about EPEL repository, I would like to know if this
> >> repo is long term support too.
> > 
> > Let me add that an effort to make sure EPEL is compatible with RPMforge
> > failed as EPEL wants to become the only repository for RHEL and there is
> > no interest to consider current RPMforge users.
> ...
> > EPEL refused the repotag, so one cannot easily identify where a package
> > comes from and mixing repositories becomes harder. Since compatibility is
> > a 2 way interaction and EPEL shows no interest, it is certain that mixing
> > EPEL with other repositories may break something.
> 
> Interesting you say that.  It's quite a stetch from "no repotags" to
> conclude "EPEL has no interest" in compatibility.

It's not really about the topic itself, but how it was handled. And
the fact that this topic was a rather effortless thing epel could had
agreed to makes the non-collaboration just more obvious.

The repotag system was a common loosely agreed on interrepo
coexistance mechanism with one weak spot: It takes one big bad repo to
destroy it. And that's what happened.

> In fact, epel (and fedora) repo is, by design and policy, supposed to be
> compatible and considerate of other repos, e.g. most notably,
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/RepositoryCollaboration
> (among other project policy documents).
> 
> When I posted the aforementioned repository collaboration document to the
> rpmforge list(s) for comment, it received none.  

But you also received close to none comments from EPEL itself. In fact
many 3rd party repo maintainers liked Tim Jackson's original draft
(which you placed unaltered in the wiki), but not even he himself
likes what this document mutated to:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-May/msg00049.html

Maybe the original draft will be picked up by other projects to signal
their mode of collaboration, let's see. It certainly was in thge
spirit of the existing 3rd party repos.

Furthermore there have been many quotes in IRC and mail of various
current EPEL steering members that they "aim higher" than the existing
repos or see EPEL as the only repo long term and the like.

On the positive side one must say that Max Spevack was interested in a
collaboration between EPEL and the rest of the world, but he's not
forcing it onto the EPEL people.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070730/e63047da/attachment.bin


More information about the CentOS mailing list