On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org> wrote: > >> >> 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. > There's really a bigger issue of how EPEL is supposed to fit in the world of 'other' repositories. What should happen when centosplus/extras has a same-named package? Other 3rd parties? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com