On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Troy Dawson <daw...@fnal.gov> wrote: > yum-conf-epel > - It should be there in the beta, or actually epel-release should. > Which brings up a question. > In the past, we have made the yum repository packages "yum-conf-blah" with > blah being the name of the repository, such as yum-conf-epel. > In my mind, that is the correct way to do things, and it makes sense to me. > But the rest of the world doesn't seem to do that. Everyone else put's > their yum repostories in blah-release, such as epel-release or > elrepo-release. > So, for SL6 is was planning on taking the blah-release from the various > compatible repositories (epel, rpmforge, atrpms, elrepo) and putting them > into the release, without any changes if possible. > I see both pro's and con's with this. > > Pro > - less work > - it will be the same if they install the repo from us, or get it from the > repo directly > > Con > - longtime SL users will expect yum-conf-blah > - I'm not sure that all the repositories have priorities set in their > default repo setups.
How about both? I.e. make the blah-release the actual package as the rest of the world AND make a virtual package yum-conf-blah that does nothing except having blah-release as its dependency for the SL oldtimers. Both can be easily built in one script at the same time. Perhaps a bit more work for Troy and Connie, but tons of pleasure and satisfaction from the SL oldtimers and the newcomers from the rest of the world :-) > Troy > -- > __________________________________________________ > Troy Dawson daw...@fnal.gov (630)840-6468 > Fermilab ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group > __________________________________________________ -- Serguei Mokhov http://www.cs.concordia.ca/~mokhov http://marf.sf.net | http://sf.net/projects/marf
