On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 4:17 AM Pablo Sebastián Greco
<pablo(a)fliagreco.com.ar> wrote:
On 18/2/20 21:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 05:17:01PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 03:04:17PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> This is what I was trying to get to in the thread recently about
>>> libssh2. However it's still not entirely clear to me.
>>>
>>> Does this mean if there's a package foo that is a rhel package, but not
>>> in a module, that it can be overlapped with a foo package thats in a
>>> epel non default module? ie, does it only mean the modular case or does
>>> it mean any rpm?
>> I don't understand the last sentence. To the first question: yes, and that
>> non-default module package will only get installed if the module is
>> explicitly enabled.
> Consider:
>
> 1. foo rpm that is in the RHEL baseos. It's not in any module.
> Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it?
>
> 2. foo rpm that is in a RHEL default module.
> Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it?
>
> 3. foo rpm that is in a RHEL non default module.
> Can epel make a foo (non default) module that overrides it?
>
> I think we all agree 3 is fine.
> I think 2 could cause problems, but perhaps it would work.
> I would think 1 would be fine also.
Kevin, I think 1 is a problem, because IIRC, if a package is part of a
module, its non-modular version is automatically hidden.
Only if that module is default, or that module is enabled.
Otherwise the regular, non-module, rpm is what you see.
Troy