On 06/02/2014 07:47 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >> On 05/30/2014 01:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> >>> Is yum supposed to track the dependencies separately? That is, if an >>> EPEL package requires some other package (expected with the stock >>> paths), can an SCL package fulfill that dependency even though it will >>> be installed in a location that won't work? >>> >> >> SCL's require that you properly configure them to work with the system >> ... you CAN likely use that version IF you modify the environment for >> the program in question. Or you can use the EPEL version and exclude >> nodejs010 from the SCL's .repo file in /etc/yum.repo.d/ >> >> SCL's are not automatically set up, as they are designed to only be used >> when properly configured and should live alongside other older >> packages. As such, they require added knowledge and administrative >> overhead, much like multiple 3rd party repos can ... but they also >> provide lots of added capabilities. > > That seems pretty dangerous if the packages replace standard or EPEL > libraries/components. I'd have expected them to have some sort of > namespace concept for dependencies to keep the sets of packages > completely independent. That is, I thought being independent was the > point. Shouldn't you be able to have multiple versions installed? > I consider this a bug, as the SCL's should be self-contained. We'd need to see if this occurs upstream as well, and then file a bug there if so. -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77