Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 19:37, Richard Shaw
<hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This may be a corner case where things are "different" but consistency
> *IS* important.
>
>
Yes I agree.. but we have built against RHEL for years and they do not have
this package in their extras. CentOS does have it in their Extras which is
the inconsistency. The problem is that CentOS EL5/EL6 had an Extras channel
which had updated swig and other packages in it, but RHEL-7 named one of
their channels Extras which was to have non-supported packages in it. So
both groups did something inconsistent with each other and you and us got
stuck with it.
I can't fix either CentOS or RHEL package sets or channel names. I can't
tell either of them what should be in these channels especially for
channels which are older than a year old. I can't create a consistent
package experience. I can commiserate with you and say I understand what a
frustration it is... but that is cold comfort.
I wonder if we (in the most general sense of we, not anyone
in particular) could come up with a script to enumerate the
differences between those two repos? And then arrange for
packages not in both repos to be excluded from the epel mock
configs?
Maybe someone reading who has a little extra time on their
hands might find such a project interesting? I know there
aren't usually many folks with extra time on their hands, so
I hesitate to even toss out ideas which I likely have little
time to help implement.
--
Todd