On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:57:23PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > >> I don't think this issue has any solution other than separate > >>namespaces. > > > >Looking at your requests on this you should realize that repotags are > >what you are really asking for the minimum level, which is what epel > >nuked to ashes. So the discussion should probably move away from this > >list to the epel list. And since it's a dead topic there as well you > >will not really get very far. > > I don't know enough about repotags to understand why everyone needs > them. Can't any repotag be distinguished from no repotag? Why is > there any need for cooperation beyond not choosing the same tag or lack > thereof? All the repotags request was about is to idntify epel packages as such with a simple tag in the file name, no more, no less. And that already died with an awful sound. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpX4NPWSI8c3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
