[CentOS] Re: Mixing RPMforge and EPEL (Was: EPEL repo)

Mon Jul 30 18:57:52 UTC 2007
drew einhorn <drew.einhorn at gmail.com>

Stupid question redux.

With some more explanation

Why not?

Make a mirror of the epel repo.

For each package in the repo.
   Create a repotag using the original signature.
   Sign the package with repotag using a new key.

Anyone wanting to mix repos.
Should require signatures with the new key.

Problems will certainly remain,
but I think this will help with some of the problems.

On 7/30/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
> >>> ATM we'll just live and let live, and there will not be any one-side
> >>> effort to rectify any compatibility issues EPEL created. It's their
> >>> mess, they'll have to clean it up.
> >>
> >> Live and let die, you mean - at least as far as the users are
> >> concerned.  I don't think this issue has any solution other than
> >> separate namespaces.
> >
> > Les
> >
> > Your issue belongs on another list
> Sorry, but I believe that the people affected need to know about it at
> least as much as the people who control it.
> > -- the 'mark by nameing' the rpm's in
> > a way obvious to a low sophistication user (rather than some checksum
> > based method that does not exist) has been proposed and rejected
> already.
> That misses the point that there may very well be reasons to want to
> have more than one version installed at once.  Every developer should
> know that there are times you need to at least test 2 different versions
>   of something on the same machine - and they generally know how to do
> it so they don't conflict.  Sadly, the FHS guys seem to live on some
> planet of perfection where real world issues of version differences and
> places to store them don't exist, and packagers have followed along with
> this mistake.
> > sad, but still the case.  We'll be having pain for this for years and
> > years. See:
> >     https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-June/msg00031.html
> >
> > Please read the archive and the back thread leading up to it. Several
> > @redhat.com showed up to pack the gallery at the 'last chance' epel
> > meeting which could have avoided this train wreck
> Reasons for disagreements are pretty much irrelevant to their effect.
> There is not much reason to ever expect everyone to agree and lots of
> reasons to provide a mechanism to allow them to disagree in separate
> spaces.  Try to imagine what the internet would be like if DNS  did not
> provide managed hierarchal namespace and anyone could usurp anyone
> else's domain.  That's what we get when different people can put
> different contents into packages of the same names.  And it isn't going
> to go away until there is a namespace based system that lets the end
> user choose which he wants.  I'd just like to see a little less
> granularity in that namespace than centos vs. ubuntu...
> --
>     Les Mikesell
>      lesmikesell at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Drew Einhorn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070730/9496f306/attachment-0005.html>