Petr "Qaxi" Klíma wrote:
>
>>> Diversity adds a lot of value. If EPEL will be only repo nobody on
>>> RHEL workstation can see/listen MP3, WMA, DVD playing, because of
>>> interesting US software patent and millenium act law.
>>
>> That's not what I meant. Obviously we need additional packages in
>> other repositories and that will be true as long as there is any
>> policy that might exclude any contribution to a centrally managed
>> repository. The question is, why do we need/want different versions
>> of the same-named packages, or packages that provide different
>> versions of the same files that can overwrite each other based on
>> conditions we can't control? There probably is a good reason to want
>> this - I just can't think of it right now.
>>
> That's easy:
>
> (this is example, has no reflection to current state ...)
>
> EPEL provides xmms-1.2.10-1.i586.rpm - but without MP3, WMA, AAC ...
> DAG provides xmms-1.2.9-1.rf.i586.rpm - with all those beasts
> ATRPM provides xmms-1.2.10-1.at.i586.rpm - with all those beasts
>
> Which you installs? Who knows, probably EPEL ...
>
> Solution?
>
> Repo priorities and includes
But wouldn't it be easier if the packages had different names so you
could just install the one(s) you want from the command line?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com