On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Alan Bartlett wrote:
The discussion, here, is about EPEL. Because they do not tag their packages and -- thank you Russ for providing some examples
I wrote the tool to 'see' potentials for over-writes after their mailing list had a thread that raised the concern. It became clear that as they were not systematically looking broadly enough for potential conflicts to suit my tastes. There are many more than the ones I posted
As a result (and actually before), the only way I consider adding EPEL as a binary archive, is with a blanket 'exclude', and per package 'includepkgs' settings. I am fine with using it as a source of SRPMs for local custom solutions for customers where I control the dependencies and over-writes, by and large (there are some exceptions)
Your tastes may vary, but the idea of adding the repository and letting a admin 'choose' to enable it will, to my thinking, result in people adding it fully enabled and without care. We see this in IRC all the time, that people post pastebins that have EPEL, and rpmforge, and ART, and more, all turned on with no awareness of why "CENTOS is broken!!"
Not a good idea. Who needs the reputational damage? Not CentOS
-- Russ herrold