Dear Dag, >>> But we had at least one Red Hat developer here going against your advice. >>> So I'd like to hear their opinion, rather than 3 times your opinion. >> >> As far as I understood Miroslav, he agrees with me in general. > > Marcus, I have a different recollection from this thread: > > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2010-January/005307.html > ... > The only option I see is to keep the rhns and spacewalk-client > packages in sync, which may be the case in the near future (e.g. on > RHEL 6) Yes, keep status que and do not remove it from CentOS 6 is definitely valid option. ... is what I have read. > It seems the people that would install the (newer) spacewalk client anyway > are the first to object the inclusion of the original RHEL RHN code, and > they are the least affected by this change. > > I am trying to understand why that is. I know that you are a fan of multiple repos having different versions of packages (and may use priorities plugin). Me not. An inclusion would also lead to such an situation, and there are no real benifits. Best Regards Marcus