On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:17:01PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:04:17PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > This is what I was trying to get to in the thread recently about > > libssh2. However it's still not entirely clear to me. > > > > Does this mean if there's a package foo that is a rhel package, but not > > in a module, that it can be overlapped with a foo package thats in a > > epel non default module? ie, does it only mean the modular case or does > > it mean any rpm? > > I don't understand the last sentence. To the first question: yes, and that > non-default module package will only get installed if the module is > explicitly enabled. Consider: 1. foo rpm that is in the RHEL baseos. It's not in any module. Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it? 2. foo rpm that is in a RHEL default module. Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it? 3. foo rpm that is in a RHEL non default module. Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it? I think we all agree 3 is fine. I think 2 could cause problems, but perhaps it would work. I would think 1 would be fine also. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
