EPEL, RHEL-5Server and RHEL-5Client
rtlm10 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 20:38:56 UTC 2007
On 7/12/07, Ray Van Dolson <rayvd at bludgeon.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:34:04PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > On 7/12/07, Ray Van Dolson <rayvd at bludgeon.org> wrote:
> > > Would there be any problem with just replacing the EPEL version in the
> > > EPEL repo with the upstream version if upstream decides to include a
> > > conflicting package all of the sudden?
> > Well, how about we ask upstream to use EPEL repositories, just like RH
> > does with Fedora? Huh? Huh?
> I imagine there'd still be cases where they went off and decided to do
> their own thing though, so maybe we should still decide how to handle
Does it make things any easier to have Client / Server repos that
packages get moved to only when this sort of thing happens? By
default all packages go into the current "common" repo and when
problems like this arise the move to the specific repo. At least in
that case it isn't necessary to duplicate everything in both repos.
Only the one offs.
Its messy no matter how you do it. :-/
Systems Administrator -- Linux Desktops
Cisco Systems, Inc.
More information about the epel-devel-list