On 02/26/2014 01:53 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 02/26/2014 05:31 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> On 02/26/2014 11:25 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: >>>> there are more than 100 repos out there, which ones are we going to add >>> Those who provide the most desired packages and have been qualified by >>> the community as being in good shape. >> this is the important thing - what I've been trying to stress for a >> while as well. This 'qualified by the community' needs to be a >> measurable metric. >> > Lets just get specific here an explain why this can be sticky. > > OK, so repoforge and EPEL do not play nicely together. We would, in my > opinion, only be able to include one or the other release file in our > extras repo as installing both produces broken yum installs of packages. > > That is but one example. > > I personally would have no real problem with both an epel-release and an > elrepo-release RPM in CentOS Extras ... but then why not also > nux-desktop or remi or repoforge? Those will not all work together, who > do we leave out? I've already answered these questions in a previous message > > Both EPEL and ELRepo have said they do not want to be a CentOS SIG and > want to be "independent". We have offered and they have refused .. Okay > fine, that is their choice, they are independent. If you want them in > CentOS, tell them on their lists to join as a CentOS SIG. So there exists a "if it's not a CentOS SIG , we do not include references to them even if people still need to use them " policy. Fine, why did you not say so from the beginning ? It would have shorten the thread significantly > > Even IF we included these repos and they were disabled, the people who > can not find how to do one yum install command in the wiki would also > not be able to enable the .repo file without looking at the same wiki > page or ask on IRC to get instructions. It is the same amount of time > to edit a .repo file and enable it as to do yum install Experience has shown that there is a huge difference between " ask google about a package, look for a repo, try to find out how to enable said repo , download some-release-file.rpm file yum install some-release-file.rpm " and "yum install some-release-file.rpm " Not to mention that very few people make use of yum-config-manager, despite its usefulness. > some-release-file.rpm. If we are going to put the release files in, > then we need to have at least the most common options enabled. I beg to differ. All we have to do is to include the package and teach people how to yum install it. It's far easier than asking them to look for a download link, download and install. > > So, which do we add in and who gets left out As I have said, I have already answered these questions > ... personally to be fair, > I think they should all be left out instead of picking favorites. I > would also certainly not want to enable anything by default that > replaced core packages. Which is why the list was restricted to these 2 repos only and did not include IUS for instance - even if IUS is one of the most polite 3rd party repos