On 2/25/2010 3:44 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:

Hi all,

I installed BackupPC on one of my Centos 5.4-machines following the wiki at http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BackupPC#head-725ed151d366bcf182cea92f765c3739..., where BackupPC is installed from the c5-testing repo.

root@mach012 ~/ [0]# rpm -qa backuppc backuppc-3.1.0-1.el5.centos root@mach012 ~/ [0]#

Seeing how there's been some updates to BackupPC in the near past, I thought I'd run a yum update to get the updated package. That didn't work. So I searched pbone.net for a BackupPC package on CentOS5 but didn't find any. Doing the same search for RHEL5 gave me two packages (one for i386 and one for x86_64); v3.1.0-5. Looking more closely I saw that the RHEL5-packages were from epel, a repo one maybe shouldn't choose as a primary repo for ones CentOS-systems if you can help it. At least that's the impression I got from the various posts to this list.

No, epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts with the base. They are just not perfect. It's probably impossible to be perfect without a single point of coordination, but you generally won't get in trouble leaving epel enabled during updates unless you also use other 3rd party repos. They also tend not to have as current packages as rpmforge, though.

I thought all packages available from the prominent American upstream provider got a treatment from the CentOS crew? Am I wrong or am I missing something really basic, or some part of the CentOS philosophy here? Or isn't BackupPC a package worthy of being CentOSified? 8-)

There is (was?) a version in centos-testing, but now that epel has it, there isn't much reason to have a duplicate.