On 07/09/2014 07:04 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Sven Kieske <svenkieske at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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 honestly think each sig should sort their issues out themselves. >> reasoning with example: > > How do you suggest handling the likely scenario where a SIG adds a new > package not currently in EPEL and subsequently EPEL adds that same > package but with different contents/options/versions? > > Or a package in EPEL that a SIG user needs or may add includes the > same file as a SIG package, creating a conflict? Again, this may > change after releases and block updates when there is no coordination > among the repositories. > > These have been common issues, pretty much forever for people using > packages from multiple repositories. I'm not convinced there is a > generic solution that doesn't involve tracking all of the files and > dependencies across all of the repositories just like you have to > within a single one. > I have already suggested entire yum-plugin-priorities structure in this thread: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-January/009372.html and here: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-January/009520.html And I created/explained repository hierarchy here: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-January/009595.html I am willing to further explain/expand on what I propose, so it is understood as best as possible. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant