On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Dennis Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 14 January 2010 07:01:37 pm Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:21:31 -0700 >> > >> > Stephen John Smoogen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ok there are 76 direct conflicts between RH sub-channels and EPEL >> > >> > Which sub-channels exactly? > > Packages in satellite, directory server, and certificate system are expected > to > possibly cause conflicts. the open source equivilent are branded under > diferent product names and are undergoing work explictly to get them into > epel.
That is interesting. > I know i personally pulled a bunch of the packages from epel to put into > satellite and if we pull them from epel i would be extremely disappointed. > In the satellite case you only have a supported satellite server if you use > software from the rhn channels adding epel to a satellite box will > immediately make you unsupported. Adding EPEL makes a RHEL box of any sort unsupported, but Red Hat is not a stickler about this unless what you have done is likely the cause your problem. Then you remove it and reproduce. Thinking more about this I do think someone running a layered product would probably be much less likely to use a third party repo though than other random RHEL boxes would be. If Red Hat is using EPEL as an upstream for its layered products I think EPEL should be able to expect some cooperation from Red Hat in the future. John _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
