On 10 decembrie 2015 09:47:00 EET, Jamie Nguyen <j at jamielinux.com> wrote: >On 09/12/15 22:28, 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. > >Actually, I see this as a lack of communication between RHEL and EPEL, >so this problem could have been avoided with better integration between >RHEL and EPEL (not CentOS and EPEL, though of course that would be >great >too). > >I don't think that the EPEL libunwind maintainer was aware that RHEL >was >intending to ship their own libunwind. RHEL libunwind-1.1-5 was >committed in June in order to "beat" EPEL libunwind-1.1-3 (and the RHEL >maintainer told me that their internal review process *does* include a >check for EPEL upgrade path). However, later the EPEL maintainer built >libunwind-1.1-10 and this is where the problems began. > >If the EPEL maintainer had been aware of RHEL's libunwind package, he >could have chosen "Release: 3%{?dist}.1" and "Release: 3%{?dist}.2" >etc. >for future builds on EPEL to avoid conflicting with RHEL/CentOS. EPEL >wouldn't have needed to retire libunwind so quickly (ie, retire only >after CentOS 7.2 is released), and we wouldn't have had this problem at >all. > >Kind regards, >Jamie You are perfectly right here on all points. Unfortunately RH , short of providing access to beta to the customers, never announces in advance what packages will overlap with EPEL