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 I find it hard to understand how us including repo rpms, which have the potential to become outdated and require editing after install are somehow easier than installing from originator.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-0007.sig>