On 9 December 2015 at 16:10, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/09/2015 02:28 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> >> This is a terrible solution. Its a kludge for the best way, and just >> highlights the dire need for EPEL to be better integrated into the >> CentOS side of things. > > > How should EPEL resolve the situation? > > If they kept their own libunwind package, that would violate their policy > against conflicting with packages in RHEL. Well the issue sort of effects RHEL customers also... if they had installed EPEL libunwind but the RHEL version update gives them an incompatible one then they are stuck with a broken package(s)... until a rebuild of those packages occur. some sort of integration could allow for either the window of that being smaller or better found. > > EPEL could have two branches, for RHEL and CentOS separately, and push > packages to the CentOS repo when CentOS catches up with RHEL. That seems > like a lot of work to cover a relatively rare problem. > > I don't see another reasonable way they could resolve the situation, as long > as CentOS and RHEL are on asynchronous release schedules. > > It seems like CentOS might be able to partially resolve the problem by > beginning work on their update releases when RHEL goes into beta, rather > than waiting for general availability. I don't know if those packages are > or could be available to CentOS during beta, though. There's some risk that > RH would make changes that would invalidate some of the work done during > beta, but I don't know how often that happens in practice. What are your > thoughts? > The packages in beta are not generally available. CentOS is currently built from code dropshipped from Red Hat via a git repository and I don't believe the Beta code is available there. [My ignorance of this is mostly that I wouldn't know the git commands to find out :)] -- Stephen J Smoogen.