Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
>>> 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.
EPEL is "better" in that they make an effort to never replace base packages, but
they consider RHEL as the base. You are usually safe leaving epel enabled for
updates - but for a few things you may want newer packages from other repos
where you have to be more careful.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
