On 07/09/2014 01:19 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > On 07/09/2014 03:14 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> On 07/09/2014 12:24 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> On 07/09/2014 02:37 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >>>> hi, >>>> >>>> We are going to need to find a way to address content in CentOS ( or >>>> well, content in EPEL ) where there are packages in centos that didnt >>>> come from rhel but are going to overlap with whats in EPEL. >>>> >>>> Technically, this is a centos.org issue since EPEL's mandate requires >>>> them to not overlap with RHEL[1]. But with stuff going into >>>> CentOS-Extras/ and more content coming onboard from SIG's - and even >>>> from Core SIG - how are we going to address the overlap / flapping >>>> potential with EPEL ? >>>> >>>> I am going to be pulling in cloud-init with a couple of deps, need to >>>> have these in the centos.org repos to do cloud instance builds. >>>> >>>> - KB >>>> >>>> [1]: I am not sure if EPEL cant overlap with base RHEL or with variants >>>> and layered products ? >>>> >>> The only real way to handle it is with excludes or priorities in the yum >>> config files .. that, or some other thing like epochs or higher versions >>> in the centos.org content to make it newer (assuming that is the goal). >> I am hoping we can find a way to communicate this and sync with the epel >> folks in a manner that it does not cause too much issues. priorities >> will help i guess, but it will cause issues when people want to consume >> one and not the other ( either way ), specially when its down to libs >> >> > Can;t we go with a new/separate repo , default disabled, with different > (higher) priority ? if we disable extras, we've cut off epel completely. Also sig's and other efforts wont want to ship orhpahed code, so they will want their own content to always be visible. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc