On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 20:29, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > Akemi Yagi wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You need to be somewhat careful these days about things that came from >>> centos-testing or extras as some now also appear in epel with the same names and >>> version number that aren't likely to be coordinated. I haven't seen anything >>> actually break from this yet but have been surprised to see things originally >>> installed from CentOS updating from EPEL. >> >> Good point. While centos-testing and centosplus repos are disabled by >> default, extras is shipped enabled. So, any 3rd party repo (including >> EPEL) must be used with proper setup (priority plugin, include/exclude >> lines, etc). I have added a note to the EPEL section at: >> >> http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories >> >> EPEL is generally known to not overwrite distro files, but when it >> starts showing conflicts with the CentOS extras repo, that needs an >> additional note. > > I think the point is that CentOS isn't 'the distro' that epel doesn't overwrite. > And it really makes more sense for most additional content to be maintained in > epel where it is available and compatible for RHEL and Scientific Linux users as > well as CentOS. And since you are fairly likely to need at least some of the > extensive content from epel, you might as well treat the centos > plus/extras/testing repos as the 3rd party addons that they are, particularly in > light of the frequent comments here that their only priority is compatibility > with upstream. > Ooff, that sounds familiar. I jumped ship from Fedora around FC6, one of the reasons was constant dependency hell. I don't remember the details, but I really needed packages from both the Livna and Dag camps. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com