On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <centos at plnet.rs> wrote: >>> We don't have the same restrictions that EPEL does, so the barrier to >>> >entry should be lower. >> I'm not convinced. I think some automated vetting of combinations of >> independent repos would be a much more complete solution. That way >> you could recommend a set of repos or include their -release rpms in >> the base disto without the expectation of future breakage as the >> result. And the usefulness would apply to RHEL/SL or anything built >> on the same base packages. > > NOT "base distro"!, additional repositories! Base repo/packages come > only from RHEL source rpms. There are really two different scenarios. You can sort-of assume that base, EPEL, elrepo, and cento-extras are all necessary in common situations and all make an effort not to step on each others' toes, so that doesn't need much consideration. One scenario that does, is where you need a package these repos don't include and that package itself doesn't overwrite anything the repos above provide. OpenNMS would be a safe example. Ocsinventory-server is more problematic. It would work without replacing packages, but the remi repo containing it will offer to stomp on your msyql, php and a bunch of other stuff. The other scenario is where the functionality you need only comes from newer/replaced base packages or libraries. The latter situation is so much harder to handle correctly that it probably shouldn't be lumped together with the simpler 'additional package' case which itself is already harder than it should be because the repositories often mix them with things that do cause conflicts. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com