On Jul 8, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 07.07.2007 16:32, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>> I for one am 100% in favor of including them in EPEL. At least because
>> RH5 uses yum.
> +1 (except centos-yumconf of course)
> But we should not create trouble for CentOS, so I'm in favor of this,
> what was said somewhere else in this thread:
> On 07.07.2007 22:58, Steven Pritchard wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 10:47:25PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>>> But then EPEL conflicts with Centos.
>> Why not just track their package with a lower Release?
I have rebuilt the following packages by using those included in CentOS
4.5 and prepending a '0' to the release tag (and in some cases, adding a
For the yum package I also made a change to the yum.conf file which gets
installed so that it looks at redhat-release instead of centos-release.
CentOS users should not be installing these packages due to the lower
release number, so this should work nicely to allow RHEL 4 users to
install yum if needed.
I've put all the SRPMs here: http://www.sheltren.com/epel/packages/
The sha1sums can be found in sha1sums.txt signed with my gpg key.
If these packages look good to everyone, I'm willing to coordinate with
the Fedora maintainers to get these into EPEL. If the maintainers don't
want to maintain the package in EPEL, I am willing to co-maintain them
in EPEL (or have someone else do it if anyone's interested).
Thoughts, questions, comments?
I would like to take the opportunity to publicly thank Jeff and Mike
McGrath for discussing this issue with the CentOS developers.
The CentOS devels think that this is a great solution to the problem.
Since I have complained loudly on this list for the lack of
collaboration in the past, I figured I should also praise a good effort too.