On 06/02/2014 07:47 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/30/2014 01:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>>> Is yum supposed to track the dependencies separately? That is, if an
>>> EPEL package requires some other package (expected with the stock
>>> paths), can an SCL package fulfill that dependency even though it will
>>> be installed in a location that won't work?
>>>
>>
>> SCL's require that you properly configure them to work with the system
>> ... you CAN likely use that version IF you modify the environment for
>> the program in question. Or you can use the EPEL version and exclude
>> nodejs010 from the SCL's .repo file in /etc/yum.repo.d/
>>
>> SCL's are not automatically set up, as they are designed to only be used
>> when properly configured and should live alongside other older
>> packages. As such, they require added knowledge and administrative
>> overhead, much like multiple 3rd party repos can ... but they also
>> provide lots of added capabilities.
>
> That seems pretty dangerous if the packages replace standard or EPEL
> libraries/components. I'd have expected them to have some sort of
> namespace concept for dependencies to keep the sets of packages
> completely independent. That is, I thought being independent was the
> point. Shouldn't you be able to have multiple versions installed?
>
I consider this a bug, as the SCL's should be self-contained. We'd need
to see if this occurs upstream as well, and then file a bug there if so.
--
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
