On 26 February 2014 04:53, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> 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? > > 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. > Just to be clear here.. EPEL doesn't have an organization which could say yay or nay on it. It is a anarcho-syndicalist commune at best (an autonomous commune would be going to far). Some people say yay, some people say nay, some people say whats in it for me. I expect that most are waiting to see how the CentOS SIGs get put into place and release stuff with 7 to see what they want to do. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140226/82ec9fb4/attachment-0007.html>