On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:23, Paul Howarth <paul(a)city-fan.org> wrote:
As RHEL-6 ships some packages for particular architectures only
perl-Perl-Critic and a bunch of its dependencies are not included in the
ppc64 release), we have built clones of the RHEL-6 packages in EPEL-6 to
satisfy dependencies of packages that need them.
This then leads to the possibility of EL-6 users on architectures where
these packages *are* included getting the EPEL packages rather than the RHEL
packages. This could be avoided if we added a cost (> 1000) to the EPEL repo
in epel-release, such that yum would always pull packages from RHEL rather
than EPEL where the "same" package existed in both.
Any reason why this shouldn't be done?
I believe in the past we have asked the following:
1) Only build for the architectures that are excluded (eg build it
for ppc64 and not x86_64 or i386)
2) Keep to the same version or make the release number smaller than
what is in EL-5
I am not sure of what effect cost might have on other setups so will
check with skvidal and others.
epel-devel-list mailing list
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines