[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Packages duplicated between EL-5 sub-channels and EPEL



On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:06 AM, David Juran <djuran redhat com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 21:21 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a badger gmail com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:21:31PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>> >
>> > But why the second list?  If the package is in RHEL, then we need to check
>> > the second list and see if they can build/work with the version in RHEL,
>> > right?  Not outright drop?
>>
>> The packages are in channels that are layered onto RHEL and not
>> available to customers who have not bought those products. Only the
>> SRPMS are available. Thus building those packages would be impossible
>> for someone who is trying to build stuff on CentOS or in the build
>> system. So basically you have to pull them because you can't build
>> them IF you following the rule as written.
>
> I think we've been through this before, but if EPEL would ship the same
> version that Red Hat does of the layered products then there wouldn't be
> any conflict for those who have the layered product and the one's who do
> have the layered product can still enjoy the package. Or am I missing
> something here?
>

It would conflict because you have essentially the same package, same
version, same release, etc. but from two different sources. This is
what the yum-priorities plugin exists to solve but it is not known to
work with RHN so CentOS users are fine, but RHEL users are hosed.

> Also, doesn't CentOS ship re-builds of the layared products?
>

Yes, they do.

<SNIP>


-AdamM


-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]