On 24/04/2020 15:59, lejeczek via CentOS-devel wrote: > >> >> >> CloudSIG repos are not created nor tested to work with EPEL. > > Yet they should be. Everything should be tested and should > take as much advantage of EPEL as possible, as EPEL is for > almost every "regular" > scientific/small,large/business/education - and whichever > other names one could come up with - environment, the > must-have repo. > If SIGs do not start crawling out their "special" closets > and do not work with EPEL tightly then the rest of us will > continue to suffer constant packages conflicts. Stuff > collides way too often! > Or rid of EPEL altogether and just give us a consistent & > stable software repositories. > >> Among other reasons CloudSIG support several stable >> releases which require different dependencies versions and >> EPEL is single rolling release. > There is a reason for not including EPEL in e.g CloudSig or Opstools: EPEL is not gated and as Alfredo already mentioned, a rolling release. There was a time when cloud SIG relied on EPEL, but e.g an all test days we organized for real people to test new deployments, then EPEL was broken; for various reasons: person a upgraded puppet, person b pushed a broken build, etc. etc. Coming from that experience, I would not pull it in and rather contribute to a CentOS SIG to have more control on the content; it is easier and more reliable to handle upgrades there. IMHO EPEL is something you can use; but if you do, understand that every fedora packager can push their packages to EPEL. There are rules, but not all packagers care about the upgrade policy. I totally understand, where you are coming from, but EPEL is too unstable in my experience. Matthias