On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:23, Paul Howarth <[email protected]> wrote: > As RHEL-6 ships some packages for particular architectures only (e.g. > perl-Perl-Critic and a bunch of its dependencies are not included in the > ppc64 release), we have built clones of the RHEL-6 packages in EPEL-6 to > satisfy dependencies of packages that need them. > > This then leads to the possibility of EL-6 users on architectures where > these packages *are* included getting the EPEL packages rather than the RHEL > packages. This could be avoided if we added a cost (> 1000) to the EPEL repo > in epel-release, such that yum would always pull packages from RHEL rather > than EPEL where the "same" package existed in both. > > Any reason why this shouldn't be done?
I believe in the past we have asked the following: 1) Only build for the architectures that are excluded (eg build it for ppc64 and not x86_64 or i386) 2) Keep to the same version or make the release number smaller than what is in EL-5 I am not sure of what effect cost might have on other setups so will check with skvidal and others. > Paul. > > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list > -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
