dep checker script
fedora at leemhuis.info
Sun Feb 3 19:23:27 UTC 2008
On 03.02.2008 19:42, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 03.02.2008 18:52, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 2008 7:37 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
>>> This allows us
>>> to catch items where CentOS has something and RHEL doesn't..
>> Well, no offense, but that's afaics would be a bug in CentOS, as they
>> aim to be compatible.
> Uhm no. Red Hat does not always ship various -devel and some other
> packages when a package was built. CentOS also has made sure that you
> get everything that would have come from a package so that you could use
> it to do other development. This was a big problem in 2/3 and a bit in
> 4. I think 5 may not have had this issue.
Ahh, k, didn't know that. Thx for letting me/us know.
>>> and if
>>> something conflicts with the CentOS 'extras' repo so that problems can
>>> be managed correctly.
>> Good idea.
>> But on the other hand: the repotag wars were now nearly a year ago and
>> one of the bad guys (/me) leaves soon. Maybe we could somehow come over
>> it and make peace with the CentOS guys and work together in a better way
>> that works better for both sides? That was my and afaics everybody's
>> else plan when we started EPEL, but didn't happen due some
>> mis-communication and misunderstandings (that's the short story and I
>> blame myself for a few of those issues that lead to the current
>> situation) in the initial EPEL start phase.
> That is my hope. I can't say that it will happen, but I will work
> towards it.
I actually some weeks ago looked once what's in CentOS extras that's not
yet in EPEL. The xfce desktop environment is still missing in EPEL, but
nirik is planing to build it iirc (the CentOS extras package are
rebuilds of the Fedora packages). Mono is also not completely in EPEL,
but Xavier has started with it iirc.
Note that if EPEL really wants to be suitable for both RHEL and CentOS
without causing to many broken deps problems EPEL need to invent some
tricks (two repos?) in the long run afaics, as sometimes stuff hits RHEL
a bit earlier then CentOS. That has consequences for CentOS&EPEL users
if a EPEL packages depends on the new stuff; the quarterly updates (does
anybody have a better name for them; they are not quarterly...) are the
big (only?) problem area here afaics.
More information about the epel-devel-list