On 05/29/2012 04:44 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Jan-Frode Myklebust <[email protected]> said: >> I completely agree. Secondary repo which would be disabled by default >> holding packages that could conflict with RH-channels would be ideal for >> our usage. It would also open up for actively including stuff that's in >> RHEL layered products -- for unsupported usage. > > The problem with that is you'd need an ever-increasing combination of > additional EPEL repos. There'd be an "EPEL base" that doesn't conflict > with any layered products (but has almost no packages), but then you'd > need a bunch of combinations of "doesn't conflict with foo and bar but > may conflict with baz".
I don't think "a bunch of combinations" is necessary here. Just create the base repo and an extension repo. The base repo is conservative in that it only carries packages that don't collide with any of the RHEL products. The extension repo is disabled by default and by enabling it you explicitly recognize that if its contents collide with layered products you have installed then it's your job to deal with that. If you don't like that feel free to only use the base repo. Trying to specifically accomodate every possible combination of products installed sounds way too complicated and will most likely only create a big mess. Regards, Dennis _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
