| |
@@ -310,11 +310,16 @@
|
| |
xref:epel-faq.adoc#does_epel_replace_packages_provided_within_red_hat_enterprise_linux[Per
|
| |
RHEL Release Package Conflict Channel Exclusions]
|
| |
|
| |
- * EPEL packages must never conflict with packages in RHEL. See above link
|
| |
- for a complete list of channels per RHEL Release that EPEL does not conflict
|
| |
- with. This includes source package names due to the way that koji deals
|
| |
- with packages from external repositories.
|
| |
- * EPEL packages can conflict with packages in other RHEL channels.
|
| |
+ * EPEL packages must not conflict with packages in the target base of RHEL.
|
| |
+ See above link for a complete list of channels per RHEL Release that EPEL does not conflict with.
|
| |
+ This includes source package names due to the way that koji deals with packages from external repositories.
|
| |
+ * As an exception to the above rule,
|
| |
+ devel packages in EPEL that are alternate versions of devel packages in RHEL (i.e. compat packages)
|
| |
+ are allowed to conflict with each other.
|
| |
+ See the section about
|
| |
+ xref:epel-policy.adoc#conflicts_in_compat_packages[conflicts in compat packages]
|
| |
+ for more details.
|
| |
+ * EPEL packages can conflict with packages in other RHEL channels outside of the target base.
|
| |
* EPEL maintainers should be open to communication from RHEL maintainers
|
| |
and try and accommodate them by not shipping specific packages, or by
|
| |
adjusting the package in EPEL to better handle a conflicting package in
|
| |
@@ -331,12 +336,14 @@
|
| |
[[conflicts_in_compat_packages]]
|
| |
== Conflicts in compat packages
|
| |
|
| |
- Due to the EPEL policy of maintaining backwards compatibility, EPEL has
|
| |
- a greater need for forward compat packages than Fedora. When creating, a
|
| |
- compat package, note that it is okay to set a Conflicts between them as
|
| |
- noted in the xref:packaging-guidelines::Conflicts.adoc#_compat_package_conflicts[Conflicts
|
| |
- Guidelines]. At this time, this is only allowed for packages overriding
|
| |
- packages in EPEL, not in RHEL Base.
|
| |
+ Due to the EPEL policy of maintaining backwards compatibility,
|
| |
+ EPEL has a greater need for forward compat (i.e. newer alternate version) packages than Fedora.
|
| |
+ There may also be cases where backwards compat (i.e. older alternate version) packages are needed.
|
| |
+ When creating a compat package,
|
| |
+ note that it is okay to set a Conflicts between them as noted in the
|
| |
+ xref:packaging-guidelines::Conflicts.adoc#_compat_package_conflicts[Fedora Conflicts Guidelines].
|
| |
+ This is allowed both between EPEL packages and between EPEL and RHEL packages.
|
| |
+ The latter is an explicit exception to the general rule for EPEL packages to not conflict with target base RHEL packages.
|
| |
|
| |
[[policy_for_orphan_and_retired_packages]]
|
| |
== Policy for Orphan and Retired Packages
|
| |
https://pagure.io/epel/issue/247