Need to move Monday meeting

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at
Sun Sep 14 06:56:14 UTC 2008

On 13.09.2008 19:30, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:42:22 +0200
> fedora at (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>> On 13.09.2008 17:57, Jon Stanley wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
>>> <fedora at> wrote:
>>>> I'd much prefer to ship the newer libs or those 'core' apps in
>>>> question in parallel to the packages from EL. That was discussed
>>>> for speex (a newer one than the one in EL5 is needed by recent
>>>> asterisk versions iirc) and might solve the problems.
>>> Me too, except I foresee one problem with this.  Joe User enables
>>> the EPEL repo, and is ignorant of the fact that it now includes
>>> updates to packages included in base RHEL. [...]
>> No, that's not what I meant ;-)
>> Sorry, should have been more clear in my mail. With "in parallel to
>> the packages from EL" I meant: EL continues to ship for example speex
>> as speex-1.0.5-4.el5_1.1, and we ship speex 1.2 as "speex12-1.2-4" or 
>> something with its contents in a special path. Of cause all apps in
>> EPEL that need that speex then need special treatment to look in that
>> special path for speex.
> Yeah, although even that can be difficult if there are things that are
> not parallel installable easily, and filtering deps could be tricky
> there as well in case the two packages provide some of the same
> things. ;( 

Yeah, I didn't say it was easy ;-) But I'd say in the end it's might be 
much less work then creating "layered" repo for specific things. And I 
suppose it'll be easier to use for our users as well then layered repos 
in EL and/or EPEL.


More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list