[CentOS] Re: Mixing RPMforge and EPEL (Was: EPEL repo)
Ray Van Dolson
rvandolson at esri.com
Mon Jul 30 21:26:08 UTC 2007
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:20:49PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Ray Van Dolson <rvandolson at esri.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:08:49PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > So after the fact everyone can claim anything. The important thing is
> > > how did epel (or better said certain key persons in there) deal with
> > > it when they did not see the political ramifications they inflicted
> > > upon themselves?
> > I understand how a lot of it "went down" (saw the meetings and am on
> > the lists as well), I'm just wondering if that aside (I know, hard to
> > do :), could there feasibly be an RPM-based solution to this that would
> > make repo-tags obsolete?
> Not sure if in RPM itself (in its current incarnations). It would be
> sort of a layer above it that at its simplest is the yum priorities
> list.. and in a more complicated version would rank against rpm
> signatures so that package X with X1 signature could not replace
> anything with Y1 signatures.
Only reason I ask about the RPM-based solution is that (at least to me)
it would seem to be the cleanest way to do it -- to store the
equivalent of the "repository" or origination inside a defined field
within the RPM... something that could be actually spit out via a
And the RPM guys are actively seeking feature suggestions right now.
It doesn't seem to me this would be too hard, but I'm _far_ from
knowledgeable on RPM-internals so maybe there are other hurdles.
> However, even if it were possible, I doubt it would stop it being
> brought up every couple of weeks..
I don't anticipate bridges ever being fully mended over this
unfortunately, but it would be nice to move past it if possible and
look at other technical solutions to the issue. I think most people
agreed the repotag was a temoprary solution at best....
More information about the CentOS