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

Re: Relationship to existing 3rd party repos/CentOS/SL?

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:04:49PM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> > Speaking as an end-user/sysadmin, I'm not clear on why the repotag
> > issue is as controversial as it appears to be.
> > 
> > From my perspective, RHEL (really mostly CentOS) is the base OS.
> > On top of that, I expect to layer EPEL packages, very likely some
> > packages from RPMForge, and packages from my own local repos (for
> > special needs or for packages that just aren't (and maybe can't
> > be) available from other sources).
> > 
> > Having read all the messages on the topic, I agree that the
> > current EPEL steering committee is not out to take over the world
> > or *intends* to imply that other repositories are less important,
> > but I can definitely see how Axel and Dag can *feel* like that's
> > where the committee is coming from, because that's how it feels to
> > me.
> It is more than a bad feeling. If one repo drops repotags the whole
> repotag system is broken. So the continued lack of repotags forces the
> other repos to follow along even though they are strong belivers of
> repotags.

I don't get this. 

If one repo drops repotags (or a newcomer does not adopt them as this
seems to be the case to me :-), then that repo does not have repotags.
So? That does not force anyone to drop them to match their choice. If
there is just _one_ repo that does not use repotags then the "system"
still works, anything without repotags belongs to that repo, if more
repos do that then things get progressively more confusing. If/when I
package for rhel I will keep using ".ccrma" in there. 

-- Fernando

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