[CentOS] stock openjdk vs. epel
Nicolas.Thierry-Mieg at imag.fr
Fri Jun 5 11:55:43 UTC 2009
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Rob Kampen wrote:
>>>> by default base+updates should get priority over anything else
>>>> including epel, don't you agree?
>>> Not necessarily. I don't see any inherent reason that I would want
>>> openjdk-b09 over b12 and I'd expect the reverse since b12 fixes known
>>> bugs. But I would want to know that I'm not the first person to try
>>> to run it, which is why I raised the question.
>> I think priorities set globally should be for base and updates to be
>> highest. In this case there is a particular rpm that the upstream vendor
>> has not yet updated to the later release. Thus those that cannot wait
>> can use yum exclude and thus move to another repo - in this case epel to
>> get a later release. But as always if it breaks you get to keep the
>> Works for me.
> For some definition of 'works'... How would the person who needed the
> newer version know it was available if they've excluded it? And since
apt-cache policy, yum probably has something similar
as Rob said, having highest priority for base+updates doesn't stop you
from installing newer versions from elsewhere if you so decide. It just
keeps you from doing so unwittingly.
> epel isn't 'supposed' to overwrite stock versions (I think Rex verified
> my impression of that policy), why would you expect to need to exclude
"supposed" is the key word.
> epel or lower its priority - or if that does need to be done, why isn't
> it done in the default *release packages for the repos?
choosing the priorities for your various repos must be done by the user.
Most people probably agree that base+updates should be highest, but
beyond that it depends on your needs and personal preferences.
In addition having priorities=N settings in the *release packages could
be misleading since yum-priorities is not necessarily installed.
More information about the CentOS