[CentOS] stock openjdk vs. epel

Nicolas Thierry-Mieg 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 
>> pieces.....
>> 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.
only human...

> 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 mailing list