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

Re: 6.4 overlaps

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Paul Howarth <paul city-fan org> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:49:59 -0600
> Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net> wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Paul Howarth <paul city-fan org> said:
>> > Several of those perl packages are mine, dating back to the RHEL 6
>> > beta, when we needed them for full arch support. What we did at the
>> > time was to rebuild the exact same package as RHEL to put in EPEL. I
>> > appreciate that that's not current policy and we'll do it
>> > differently for EPEL-7.
>> I think it is still current policy; as another follow-up to that
>> package list said, it needed to be checked for exactly what you said.
>> > I'm sure I've suggested this before but I don't see why the
>> > epel-release package can't add a "cost" of >1000 (e.g. 1001) to the
>> > epel repos so that identical packages would always be picked up from
>> > RHEL in preference to EPEL.
>> That should be looked at as well, but there's no point in maintaining
>> a package in EPEL that won't ever be used.
> It's not that they won't ever be used; certainly for the perl modules
> that I did, they weren't available for ppc so that's why they got built.

Your situation probably explains most of the two large groups where
either we see the same version or we see a lower version lingering in

Why not generate these lists and exclude the packages in question from
the metadata built for architectures where they are included in RHEL?


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