On 01/12/2016 11:58 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 12/01/16 03:51, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >>> should centos-release-scl not have at least a "Obsoletes: centos-release-SCL" statement? >>> >>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/extras/x86_64/Packages/centos-release-SCL-6-5.el6.centos.x86_64.rpm >>> vs >>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/6/extras/x86_64/Packages/centos-release-scl-6-6.el6.centos.noarch.rpm >> >> And a "Provides: centos-release-SCL", for people like me with "mock" >> configurations that used it. > > honza can shed a bit more light on this, but it was discussed before the > first SCL release - and it appeared to not be needed, as new users would > just migrate over. We discussed this topic, but haven't closed it IIRC. New users won't need it, correct. But I remember we said the old users would probably expect centos-release-SCL will be replaced by centos-release-scl automatically. So, it still seems something we should change. This couldn't be done before the first release, because all the collections weren't released at that point. Now, I believe we can add the Provides/Obsoletes bits into centos-release-SCL. Let's discuss this on the meeting tomorrow. Honza