>-----Original Message----- >From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf >Of Les Mikesell >Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:52 PM >To: centos at centos.org >Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS > [...] >> Looking more closely I saw that the RHEL5-packages were from epel, >a repo one >> maybe shouldn't choose as a primary repo for ones CentOS-systems if you can >> help it. At least that's the impression I got from the various posts to this >> list. > >No, epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts >with the base. They are just not perfect. It's probably impossible to >be perfect without a single point of coordination, but you generally >won't get in trouble leaving epel enabled during updates unless you also >use other 3rd party repos. They also tend not to have as current >packages as rpmforge, though. Yeah, I noticed that with rpmforge. I was just under the impression that epel was a bit "dodgy" as repos come. Never too late to be enlightened though. ;-) -- /Sorin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5110 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20100226/afcf2d59/attachment-0005.bin>