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

Re: 6.4 overlaps

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.


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