On 15/12/14 16:24, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org mailto:mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> Good points. Would a separate cbs-tools repo, with a cbs-tools-release > package in CentOS-Extras be acceptable? that might work, but why do we not want centos-extras to overlap EPEL ? Iirc, it already does this. - KB <http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel>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.
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).
the biggest issue is that we have no way to feedback into EPEL, till we can resolve that part of the equation its just a downstream from CentOS - and setting a user experience in the platform remains on their plate.
Having said that, as long as we remain a higher EVR than the corrosponding EPEL package, or at the exact same EVR, there should be no repo flapping, and it should be a fairly consistent user experience.
w.r.t koji, it would be about the same thing. however, given the potential userbase is going to be even smaller, it can go into its own repo with a -release rpm in -Extras/