----- Original Message ----- > Le 08/11/2013 08:33, Bohuslav Kabrda a écrit : > >> When scl-utils vendor is not the package vendor this inconsitency create > >> an issue. > > > > That is solved by redefining _scl_prefix in your own metapackage. I really > > don't see the problem. > > This is exactly the problem = > you don't see the problem. > > You cannot redefine _scl_prefix in each package. That is "by design". It you want another _scl_prefix, you should build another collection that depends on collection you want to use. > - this will be redundant and tricky > - you don't know which is the correct directory (owned by foo-runtime) > > Definitively, I think I must forgive the idea of extending RHSCL in EPEL. Extending as in "building more packages into the same collection"? You shouldn't be able to do that, that is by desing of RHSCL afaik. Extending as in "building my own collection that depends on collection from RHSCL"? You will be able to do that. > If RHSCL users want to extends existing SCL, they will have to rely on > themselves or Red Hat? So if the only problem is that you cannot redefine _scl_prefix in every package, then I guess there is not problem, because scl-utils are meant to work this way. > Remi. -- Regards, Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
