On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 11:49:15AM -0600, Troy Dawson wrote:
> Looks like we didn't get enough testing done, and maybe rrdtool doesn't  
> really need to be in the plain SL release.
>
Like Steve, I think that's probably the best approach. If there is a
concrete reason for including directly it in SL though, it might suffice
to use a 1.2 version that's compatible with the EPEL release.


> p.s. Just so you know, we didn't test it with every EPEL package.  When  
> I said that "these packages are compatible with both epel and dag" I was  
> meaning the rrdtool package.  It was packaged in the EPEL fashion and  
> naming convention, with provides statements so that it worked and  
> updated corrected with the dag repository.
>
I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach; all I meant by referring
to that was that this problem interoperating with EPEL was most likely
something that simply hadn't been spotted, and not something you didn't
care about.

Ewan