On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:17:00PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Dag Wieers wrote: > > >You may argue that that is a good thing. But Fedora is a different beast > >than RHEL. People may want stable packages, or current packages and a > >single repository (with the tools we have today) cannot provide this. > > But people may want _both_ the stable package and the current package on > the same machine at the same time. Having a hint of the difference > barely visible in the package name doesn't help a bit. > > >Besides, it punishes people who did not have an alternative back when > >Fedora Extras refused to do RHEL packages and only had RPMforge to fall > >back on. > > > >At least that's my point of view. > > I think you are making too much out of name differences for things that > can clobber each other and not enough about ways to let the different > things co-exist - on the same machines if you want them, or to let users > choose which they want. If two same-named packages can conflict, > someone did something wrong and the issue shouldn't be about who did it > but how to avoid it.
I pretend I bite. How are two libfoos going to coexist? Or two perl modules? Or two python modules? Or two ... Actually there are ways, but once you sketch them you'll find the cure far worse than the asserted disease. So your homework is to setup a dummy repo that works that way. You will either find the perfect solution and we'll all bow in front of you, or you will cry for apologies. ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgp0WpINQKVFL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
