[CentOS-devel] Overlap between EPEL and CentOS ( non upstream pkgs )

Sat Jul 19 13:26:44 UTC 2014
Fred Smith <fredex at fcshome.stoneham.ma.us>

On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:46:25PM +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> 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.

I've always thought, too, that priorities should be set up by default,
and the defaults should be to protect the Centos* repos. I always set
it up myself, giving centos* repos the lowest numbers and working up
from there in the order of which things I don't want overwritten by
other repos of lower priority. I usually give the Centos* repos a priority
of ten, epel 20, and so forth, on the theory that in the *normal* case,
I dont' want 3rd-party repos overriding the distro's own repos. I realize
there are some cases where that isn't true, though.

I see your suggested priorities put epel and some others before the
distro's own repos. I guess you have a good reason for that...

---- Fred Smith -- fredex at fcshome.stoneham.ma.us -----------------------------
                        The Lord is like a strong tower. 
             Those who do what is right can run to him for safety.
--------------------------- Proverbs 18:10 (niv) -----------------------------