On 07/09/2014 07:04 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Sven Kieske svenkieske@gmail.com wrote:
Technically, this is a centos.org issue since EPEL's mandate requires them to not overlap with RHEL[1]. But with stuff going into CentOS-Extras/ and more content coming onboard from SIG's - and even from Core SIG - how are we going to address the overlap / flapping potential with EPEL ?
I honestly think each sig should sort their issues out themselves. reasoning with example:
How do you suggest handling the likely scenario where a SIG adds a new package not currently in EPEL and subsequently EPEL adds that same package but with different contents/options/versions?
Or a package in EPEL that a SIG user needs or may add includes the same file as a SIG package, creating a conflict? Again, this may change after releases and block updates when there is no coordination among the repositories.
These have been common issues, pretty much forever for people using packages from multiple repositories. I'm not convinced there is a generic solution that doesn't involve tracking all of the files and dependencies across all of the repositories just like you have to within a single one.
I have already suggested entire yum-plugin-priorities structure in this thread: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-January/009372.html
and here: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-January/009520.html
And I created/explained repository hierarchy here: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-January/009595.html
I am willing to further explain/expand on what I propose, so it is understood as best as possible.