On 06/02/2014 10:06 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Jim Perrin <jperrin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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. >> > There's really a bigger issue of how EPEL is supposed to fit in the > world of 'other' repositories. What should happen when > centosplus/extras has a same-named package? Other 3rd parties? > Then you have to figure it out ... it happens. Many different repos have packages with the same name. If the repos don't play nicely with each other, well then that is their fault. Garbage in / Garbage out.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
