Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 19:37, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This may be a corner case where things are "different" but consistency >> *IS* important. >> >> > Yes I agree.. but we have built against RHEL for years and they do not have > this package in their extras. CentOS does have it in their Extras which is > the inconsistency. The problem is that CentOS EL5/EL6 had an Extras channel > which had updated swig and other packages in it, but RHEL-7 named one of > their channels Extras which was to have non-supported packages in it. So > both groups did something inconsistent with each other and you and us got > stuck with it. > > I can't fix either CentOS or RHEL package sets or channel names. I can't > tell either of them what should be in these channels especially for > channels which are older than a year old. I can't create a consistent > package experience. I can commiserate with you and say I understand what a > frustration it is... but that is cold comfort. I wonder if we (in the most general sense of we, not anyone in particular) could come up with a script to enumerate the differences between those two repos? And then arrange for packages not in both repos to be excluded from the epel mock configs? Maybe someone reading who has a little extra time on their hands might find such a project interesting? I know there aren't usually many folks with extra time on their hands, so I hesitate to even toss out ideas which I likely have little time to help implement. -- Todd
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
