On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 05:25:58PM -0500, inode0 wrote: > > My general preference as a consumer of both RHEL and EPEL would be in order: > > 1 - EPEL does not conflict with RHEL + Layered Products (all Layered Products) > > I know that holds some important things back that lots of folks benefit from. > > 2 - EPEL does not conflict with RHEL base packages (base being loosely > defined as what comes with a standard RHEL subscription, so would in > the case of RHEL6 include the optional channel for example).
<snip> > I would be really happy also with EPEL doing 1 for its primary > repository but also providing a secondary repository where all Layered > Products can be trumped by EPEL versions. Separating those conflicts > into a secondary repo would be a big help to EPEL's downstream users I > think. I completely agree. Secondary repo which would be disabled by default holding packages that could conflict with RH-channels would be ideal for our usage. It would also open up for actively including stuff that's in RHEL layered products -- for unsupported usage. I also wish for an epel-bleeding-edge repo, that could contain latest upstream versions of select packages that are in base rhel. We f.ex. pick the latest dovecot from the package-db and build for EL6 locally. Having this in an EPEL-channel were we could get more users/tester/quality would be great. -jf _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
