Jarod Wilson wrote:
Not a good example. The repo the package is in is listed in the
output
of yum list.
# yum list kernel
Loading "installonlyn" plugin
Installed Packages
kernel.ia64 2.6.20-2.2975.bz231219 installed
kernel.ia64 2.6.20-1.2966.fc7 installed
Available Packages
kernel.ia64 2.6.20-1.2987.fc7 development
Yes, but if dag and epel had the same package name/version/release (and
no repotag) you might see:
Available Packages
nagios.i386 2.8-1.el4 dag
nagios.i386 2.8-1.el4 epel
If a yum upgrade fails while looking for a dependency of nagios, the
output wouldn't tell you if it was the dag or epel package it was trying
to install.
I'm sort of up in the air on this one. Fedora Extras is, er, was,
an
official project endorsed by RH, had no repotag, and EPEL is just an
extension of this same project. Since its an official repo, it
requires
no repotag to identify the package.
That attitude doesn't seem to be conducive to getting everyone to work
together. Remember Dag has been providing "EPEL" packages for years
now. (Thanks Dag!)
And I don't know if the RHEL support department would use the word
"official". Sounds too much like a synonym of "100% safe and fully
supported" maybe ;-)
Of course, Fedora and RHEL are a wee
bit different, and making the distinction that's easy to see at a
glance
between core RHEL packages and EPEL-for-RHEL certainly does have
some
merit that it doesn't have (or didn't when Extras was separate) in
Fedora-land. It would likely be of help to RH support if they could
tell
if a package was from RHEL-proper or from EPEL without having to
look
anything up...
Yup, that's a good reason to add a repotag too.
Greg