On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 1:44 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 7:23 AM Matthias Runge <mrunge at matthias-runge.de> > wrote: > > > > On 23/04/2020 19:12, lejeczek via CentOS-devel wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > Here some bits being in collision: > > > > > > virglrenderer.src > > > 0.6.0-5.20180814git491d3b705.el8 > > > advanced-virt > > > virglrenderer.x86_64 > > > 0.6.0-5.20180814git491d3b705.el8 > > > advanced-virt > > > virglrenderer.x86_64 > > > 0.8.0-1.20191002git4ac3a04c.el8 epel > > > > > > Please push as much as you can over to EPEL. It's way to often that > EPEL > > > gets unnecessary confronted by extras/third-parties repos while it > > > should be taken advantage of. > > > > > > > I disagree here. If something is in centos repos (or RHEL for that > > matter), the package should not be in epel. > > > > SIG repos do not qualify here. As SIG repos can do basically anything, > including override CentOS base packages, it's not a mark to block > inclusion in EPEL. They also don't necessarily map cleanly to RHEL > content, either. > > CloudSIG repos are not created nor tested to work with EPEL. Among other reasons CloudSIG support several stable releases which require different dependencies versions and EPEL is single rolling release. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20200424/b9556877/attachment-0007.html>