With some more explanation
Why not?
Make a mirror of the epel repo.
For each package in the repo.
Create a repotag using the original signature.
Sign the package with repotag using a new key.
Anyone wanting to mix repos.
Should require signatures with the new key.
Problems will certainly remain,
but I think this will help with some of the problems.
On 7/30/07,
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
R P Herrold wrote:
>>> ATM we'll just live and let live, and there will not be any one-side
>>> effort to rectify any compatibility issues EPEL created. It's their
>>> mess, they'll have to clean it up.
>>
>> Live and let die, you mean - at least as far as the users are
>> concerned. I don't think this issue has any solution other than
>> separate namespaces.
>
> Les
>
> Your issue belongs on another list
Sorry, but I believe that the people affected need to know about it at
least as much as the people who control it.
> -- the 'mark by nameing' the rpm's in
> a way obvious to a low sophistication user (rather than some checksum
> based method that does not exist) has been proposed and rejected already.
That misses the point that there may very well be reasons to want to
have more than one version installed at once. Every developer should
know that there are times you need to at least test 2 different versions
of something on the same machine - and they generally know how to do
it so they don't conflict. Sadly, the FHS guys seem to live on some
planet of perfection where real world issues of version differences and
places to store them don't exist, and packagers have followed along with
this mistake.
> sad, but still the case. We'll be having pain for this for years and
> years. See:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-June/msg00031.html
>
> Please read the archive and the back thread leading up to it. Several
> @redhat.com showed up to pack the gallery at the 'last chance' epel
> meeting which could have avoided this train wreck
Reasons for disagreements are pretty much irrelevant to their effect.
There is not much reason to ever expect everyone to agree and lots of
reasons to provide a mechanism to allow them to disagree in separate
spaces. Try to imagine what the internet would be like if DNS did not
provide managed hierarchal namespace and anyone could usurp anyone
else's domain. That's what we get when different people can put
different contents into packages of the same names. And it isn't going
to go away until there is a namespace based system that lets the end
user choose which he wants. I'd just like to see a little less
granularity in that namespace than centos vs. ubuntu...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
Drew Einhorn
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
