On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > >>>> >>> 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? >> > > > Then you have to figure it out ... it happens. Many different repos > have packages with the same name. If the repos don't play nicely with > each other, well then that is their fault. Garbage in / Garbage out. The typical scenario is that EPEL doesn't initially have a package so you have to get it from some other repository. Then EPEL adds it, but with different build/configuration options so every time the updates leapfrog your system breaks. Is this really not a solvable problem? Should we just expect EPEL to wantonly clobber anything, including Centosplus/extras? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com