Les Mikesell napsal(a):
Correct, you would think Fedora took care of this, right ? But there
is no interest for Fedora to take care of that because they want to
be the only repository. It is not something they have an incentive
for to fix.
That is exactly the problem. The repotag would be a workaround (and a
convenient one for users) but the real changes need to be in yum or
somewhere else. And Fedora does not care, so RHEL will not have it.
I have warned for this on the Feodra mailinglist years ago. There
just is no interest to have the diversity of more than one repository.
What value does diversity add when the end user can't select which one
he wants or load all of them? I understand the scenario where a
single repository has a policy that prohibits certain packages from
being included, but the only conflicts in those cases should be where
an incomplete version is packaged in one place under the same name as
the full version in a place with a different policy. The more common
case would just be additional packages or packages with different names.
From an end-user viewpoint, I can't see why anyone would want to
maintain a potentially-conflicting package of something that can be
freely distributed and keep it in an isolated repository, especially
without any mechanism to control which will be installed. Can you
explain the reason anyone would want to have diversity instead of a
single maintainer per package and the same packages in all
repositories whose policies find them acceptable?
Diversity adds a lot of value. If EPEL will be only repo nobody on RHEL
workstation can see/listen MP3, WMA, DVD playing, because of interesting
US software patent and millenium act law.
--
Petr Klíma
e-mail: qaxi@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
