Repotag

[Jarod Wilson]

Greg Swallow wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>> Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> If I hadn't a repotag, my nagios-packages would be numbered the same
> as
>>> the EPEL packages. Including the same release tag. If people then
> have
>>> problems, nobody could tell from the output whether this was an
> EPEL,
>>> non-EPEL, RPMforge or other package.
>>>
>> I can think of a couple ways to figure this out, none of which are
> very
>> difficult.  Buildhost, vendor, packager, and key signature come to
> mind.
> 
> What about if you don't have the package installed?  If you have a
> failed 'yum upgrade' and are trying to figure out what's happening you
> only see the name/arch/epoch/version/release while it's resolving
> dependancies and if Dag takes away the repotag, using his example, 'yum
> list nagios' would show that 2 versions of nagios named identically are
> available.

Not a good example. The repo the package is in is listed in the output
of yum list.

# yum list kernel
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Installed Packages
kernel.ia64           2.6.20-2.2975.bz231219 installed
kernel.ia64           2.6.20-1.2966.fc7      installed
Available Packages
kernel.ia64           2.6.20-1.2987.fc7      development

>>> This is an EPEL issue, not a Fedora issue. Why could there not be a
> rule
>>> that says Fedora packages do not have a repotag, but EPEL packages
> will
>> ?
>> Because its just one more thing to maintain/change/whatever that so
> far
>> has only one supporter.
> 
> You can add me as a supporter even just for the reason of keeping Dag
> happy.  If you want everyone to work together (Dag, ATrpms, CentOS,
> EPEL) then respecting each others concerns is a good start.  Adding
> %{repotag} is really not that big of a deal, is it?

I'm sort of up in the air on this one. Fedora Extras is, er, was, an
official project endorsed by RH, had no repotag, and EPEL is just an
extension of this same project. Since its an official repo, it requires
no repotag to identify the package. Of course, Fedora and RHEL are a wee
bit different, and making the distinction that's easy to see at a glance
between core RHEL packages and EPEL-for-RHEL certainly does have some
merit that it doesn't have (or didn't when Extras was separate) in
Fedora-land. It would likely be of help to RH support if they could tell
if a package was from RHEL-proper or from EPEL without having to look
anything up...

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jwilson at redhat.com


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20070315/4f336d05/attachment.sig>