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

Re: Overlap policy v20120615



On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Bryan J Smith <b j smith ieee org> wrote:
> inode0 <inode0 gmail com> wrote:
>> (1) Disallow conflicts with these packages in EPEL. The upside is that
>> EPEL users know they won't have conflicts with any of these packages
>> from Red Hat. The downside is that it prevents other packages from
>> being included in EPEL that have dependencies from this package set.
>
> Why would it prevent packages from being included in EPEL?

Because they either won't build due to unresolved dependencies in the
build system in the cases of RS and SFS or they will build but produce
packages that have unresolved dependencies at install time in the
cases of HA and LB. While we do currently have packages in EPEL in
this latter category I don't think anyone really thinks it is a good
situation and it at the very least contradicts the EPEL note to RHEL6
users that they need to enable the optional channel to satisfy
dependencies.

John


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