On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:49:59 -0600 Chris Adams <cmad...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> Once upon a time, Paul Howarth <p...@city-fan.org> said: > > Several of those perl packages are mine, dating back to the RHEL 6 > > beta, when we needed them for full arch support. What we did at the > > time was to rebuild the exact same package as RHEL to put in EPEL. I > > appreciate that that's not current policy and we'll do it > > differently for EPEL-7. > > I think it is still current policy; as another follow-up to that > package list said, it needed to be checked for exactly what you said. > > > I'm sure I've suggested this before but I don't see why the > > epel-release package can't add a "cost" of >1000 (e.g. 1001) to the > > epel repos so that identical packages would always be picked up from > > RHEL in preference to EPEL. > > That should be looked at as well, but there's no point in maintaining > a package in EPEL that won't ever be used. It's not that they won't ever be used; certainly for the perl modules that I did, they weren't available for ppc so that's why they got built. Paul. _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
