Thank you for your comments, Jim. > Without stepping on too many toes or getting all into the politics of > the matter, EPEL has good packages, but they are unconcerned about > playing nice with other repositories. The general sentiment seems to > be that packagers who want their stuff distributed should simply use > EPEL for distribution. Does this make the best "protect strategy" epel before rpmforge (i.e. yum should check in epel and if it is not in there, check rpmforge)? > RPMForge and centos play very nicely together and the developers of > both projects are in frequent contact. Is RedHat in this loop? Perhaps epel is Rehat's attempt to force a bigger division between it and CentOS? > Testing is just that. Don't use it if you're worried about possible breakage. > ATrpms has some hard-to-find packages, but can replace system packages > which can potentially cause issues. Thanks, does it make sense to include these, but with a low priority protection and, if so, which should be the lowest scoundrel ;)? > Basically, while it's cumbersome, using the protectbase or priorites > plugins is good, and if you're concerned about a repository, you might > want to limit the repositories in the .repo file to only include > certain packages. The problem I found with includepkgs is that "yum --enablerepo=* search whatever" does not find that whatever is easily installed by adding it to the includepkgs line. In that regard, which is better, protectbase or priorities? -- Sincerely, John Thomas