On 25/04/14 13:41, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 04/24/2014 03:53 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: >>> rest of it is just hand waving >>> >> If you enjoy surprises. >> > > Well ... my opinion is this: > > Just because the release RPM is in extras does not mean that people have > to (or will) install it. People have to "yum install epel-release" > before they get access to the repo. > > I would assume if someone wanted to install the epel-release package, > the majority of them would want at least the main binary repository to > be enabled by default. > > If someone wants EPEL installed and wants it instead off (I think by far > the minority ... does someone disagree?), they can modify their .repo > file manually to turn it off. > > That being the case, I would think the best thing is that we just build, > sign, and push the current release file from the EPEL repo for c5 and c6 > in our CentOS Extras .. in the appropriate spot. > > Thoughts? > Hi Johnny, I agree, but for slightly different reasons. IMHO it is not up to you, me or anyone else to determine if a repo should be enabled or disabled by default - it is ONLY up to the repo themselves to decide how they ship their config file. Then, when support queries come in, they can expect a certain default configuration. If the end user chooses to change the default configuration, that is their prerogative. So yes, by all means ship repo release packages in extras, but ship them 'as is', bugs and all from the upstream repo. Personally, I'd much prefer you didn't even rebuild them - I'd rather see CentOS just redistribute the upstream built and signed binary packages via the extras repository. Just my 2 cents.