On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> yum-conf-epel
> - It should be there in the beta, or actually epel-release should.
> Which brings up a question.
> In the past, we have made the yum repository packages "yum-conf-blah" with
> blah being the name of the repository, such as yum-conf-epel.
> In my mind, that is the correct way to do things, and it makes sense to me.
> But the rest of the world doesn't seem to do that.  Everyone else put's
> their yum repostories in blah-release, such as epel-release or
> elrepo-release.
> So, for SL6 is was planning on taking the blah-release from the various
> compatible repositories (epel, rpmforge, atrpms, elrepo) and putting them
> into the release, without any changes if possible.
> I see both pro's and con's with this.
>
> Pro
> - less work
> - it will be the same if they install the repo from us, or get it from the
> repo directly
>
> Con
> - longtime SL users will expect yum-conf-blah
> - I'm not sure that all the repositories have priorities set in their
> default repo setups.

How about both? I.e. make the blah-release the actual package as the
rest of the world AND make a virtual package yum-conf-blah that does
nothing except having blah-release as its dependency for the SL oldtimers.
Both can be easily built in one script at the same time. Perhaps a bit
more work for Troy and Connie, but tons of pleasure and satisfaction
from the SL oldtimers and the newcomers from the rest of the world :-)

> Troy
> --
> __________________________________________________
> Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
> Fermilab  ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group
> __________________________________________________

-- 
Serguei Mokhov
http://www.cs.concordia.ca/~mokhov
http://marf.sf.net | http://sf.net/projects/marf