On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 20:29, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> You need to be somewhat careful these days about things that came from
>>> centos-testing or extras as some now also appear in epel with the same names and
>>> version number that aren't likely to be coordinated. I haven't seen anything
>>> actually break from this yet but have been surprised to see things originally
>>> installed from CentOS updating from EPEL.
>>
>> Good point. While centos-testing and centosplus repos are disabled by
>> default, extras is shipped enabled. So, any 3rd party repo (including
>> EPEL) must be used with proper setup (priority plugin, include/exclude
>> lines, etc). I have added a note to the EPEL section at:
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories
>>
>> EPEL is generally known to not overwrite distro files, but when it
>> starts showing conflicts with the CentOS extras repo, that needs an
>> additional note.
>
> I think the point is that CentOS isn't 'the distro' that epel doesn't overwrite.
> And it really makes more sense for most additional content to be maintained in
> epel where it is available and compatible for RHEL and Scientific Linux users as
> well as CentOS. And since you are fairly likely to need at least some of the
> extensive content from epel, you might as well treat the centos
> plus/extras/testing repos as the 3rd party addons that they are, particularly in
> light of the frequent comments here that their only priority is compatibility
> with upstream.
>
Ooff, that sounds familiar. I jumped ship from Fedora around FC6, one
of the reasons was constant dependency hell. I don't remember the
details, but I really needed packages from both the Livna and Dag
camps.
--
Dotan Cohen
http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
