[CentOS-devel] Shipping an EPEL release

[Johnny Hughes]

On 09/14/2012 10:49 AM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Alan Bartlett <ajb at elrepo.org> wrote:
>> If EPEL were to tag their RPM packages such that the package ownership
>> is perfectly clear I would vote for (1). Unfortunately EPEL declines
>> to tag their packages, so my vote is thus (3).
> 
> 
> I think this has nothing to do with the matter of hand of:  "Lots of
> people use EPEL (and other 3rd party repos).  What can we do to make
> enabling those repos easier for our users?".
> 
> Please let's not go off on this tangent.
> 
> -Jeff

I am trying to understand how this:

yum install epel-repo

(and installing an rpm maintained by CentOS that is disabled by default,
and requires editing after install)

is any easier for users than this:

yum install
http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/fedora-epel/6/i386/epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm

(and getting an enabled repo file with no editing requried)

The repo is still installed in one step, and no editing is required.

I find it hard to understand how us including repo rpms, which have the
potential to become outdated and require editing after install are
somehow easier than installing from originator.  We are also going to
install the user's pki files (which are in most repo "release" files), etc.

I am fine to put the rpms in the extras repo if people really think this
is a benefit, and maybe I am not seeing something, but to me this does
not seem to help much.

What am I missing?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20120914/163c872d/attachment.sig>