Repotag

[Jarod Wilson]

Greg Swallow wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Yes, but if dag and epel had the same package name/version/release (and
> no repotag) you might see:
> 
> Available Packages
> nagios.i386 	2.8-1.el4 	dag
> nagios.i386 	2.8-1.el4 	epel
> 
> If a yum upgrade fails while looking for a dependency of nagios, the
> output wouldn't tell you if it was the dag or epel package it was trying
> to install.

True.

>> 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. 
> 
> That attitude doesn't seem to be conducive to getting everyone to work
> together.

There would be that.

> Remember Dag has been providing "EPEL" packages for years
> now.   (Thanks Dag!)

Yep, I know. Used some of 'em in a previous life on RH7.3 and RHEL3 systems.

> And I don't know if the RHEL support department would use the word
> "official".  Sounds too much like a synonym of "100% safe and fully
> supported" maybe ;-)

Exactly the point I was making below.

>> 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...
> 
> Yup, that's a good reason to add a repotag too.  

However, I believe support typically asks people to get them the output
from the sysreport tool, which could be easily modified to add %vendor
to the rpm listing it outputs (currently does %n-%v-%r-%arch).

-- 
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/eef57a2b/attachment.sig>