On 24/04/2020 12:54, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 1:44 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 7:23 AM Matthias Runge <mrunge@matthias-runge.de <mailto:mrunge@matthias-runge.de>> wrote: > > On 23/04/2020 19:12, lejeczek via CentOS-devel wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > Here some bits being in collision: > > > > virglrenderer.src > > 0.6.0-5.20180814git491d3b705.el8 > > advanced-virt > > virglrenderer.x86_64 > > 0.6.0-5.20180814git491d3b705.el8 > > advanced-virt > > virglrenderer.x86_64 > > 0.8.0-1.20191002git4ac3a04c.el8 epel > > > > Please push as much as you can over to EPEL. It's way to often that EPEL > > gets unnecessary confronted by extras/third-parties repos while it > > should be taken advantage of. > > > > I disagree here. If something is in centos repos (or RHEL for that > matter), the package should not be in epel. > SIG repos do not qualify here. As SIG repos can do basically anything, including override CentOS base packages, it's not a mark to block inclusion in EPEL. They also don't necessarily map cleanly to RHEL content, either.CloudSIG repos are not created nor tested to work with EPEL. Among other reasons CloudSIG support several stable releases which require different dependencies versions and EPEL is single rolling release.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
EPEL repo provides modularity already, there is 'epel-modular'. I have not doubts that it's just a simple matter of "not giving a toss" and if involved parties only had the incline to get a little closer together, then all the conflicts and collisions of packages could be resolved very quickly.
regards, L.