On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 21:13 +0200, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > On 01/13/2010 06:11 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Matthew Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:41:00AM -0800, Christopher wrote: > >> > >>> Possibly RH could use a one-higher Epoch in their channels. Everybody > >>> wins. > >>> > >> That's the path of madness. Let's please not encourage it. > >> > >> > > > > We also checked and rpm doesn't allow us to use an EPOCH of -1 (for > > even more madness). > > > > I think in the end, we are going to either rebuild what they have in > > that channel OR not ship it. Joy.
+1 > or recommend using yum-priorities and use priority=1 for base / updates > / RHN and >=2 for EPEL. In addition to what everyone else already mentioned, this will cause a problem if someone first installs a version from EPEL and then subscribes to the Red Hat Channel. If the version in EPEL then is higher, the package will be "orphaned". -- David Juran Sr. Consultant Red Hat +358-504-146348
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
