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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Mon Jul 30 22:01:59 UTC 2007


On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 04:58:19PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> >>I don't know enough about repotags to understand why everyone needs 
> >>them.  Can't any repotag be distinguished from no repotag?   Why is 
> >>there any need for cooperation beyond not choosing the same tag or lack 
> >>thereof?
> >
> >All the repotags request was about is to idntify epel packages as such
> >with a simple tag in the file name, no more, no less. And that already
> >died with an awful sound.
> 
> If everyone else has added unique repo tags, isn't the lack of a tag an 
> equally unique identifier?  I'm missing the point of argument here.

So you want to reiterate the whole epel-devel repotag fiasco here
argument by argument? The argument was that once a repo drops the
repotag and foo-1.2.3-4 conflicts with foo-2.0.0-1.blahrepo the
typical user assumes the former to belong to the distro proper and the
latter to be the one causing the conflict.

This is no academia, freshrpms had dropped repotags in December and
suddely it started to rain such bug reports like "ATrpms replaces
Fedora's mplayer".

But really this becomes more and more off-topic and a repetition of
the epel-devel list discussion. If you have more questions on the
nature of repotags and the repo rifts created by epel, please check
the epel archives. Be assured that every aspect has been brought up
and beaten to death.
-- 
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/20070731/c5a90376/attachment.bin


More information about the CentOS mailing list