On 06/15/2013 03:31 PM, "François Cami" wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Steve Gordon
<sgordon(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dave Neary" <dneary(a)redhat.com>
>> To: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon(a)redhat.com>
>> Cc: rdo-list(a)redhat.com
>> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 7:27:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Rdo-list] Missing python-httplib2 package in RDO?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, EPEL is required. It was in the initial install instructions, and I
>> seem to recall a discussion about how installing the repo file enabled EPEL.
>>
>> Pádraig, am I mis-remembering?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave.
>
> As Alan alluded to on the bug packstack should, and probably is, enabling EPEL by
default on EL6-based distributions (will do a run later today to confirm hopefully). I
suspect the user in question had installed the RDO release RPM and was following the
manual installation path, we probably need a note somewhere to highlight that EPEL is
assumed/required in this case?
yes
What about adding
Requires: epel-release
to rdo-release.spec?
We could even put the epel-release rpm in the rdo repository to make
things simpler.
Though a little less flexible. packstack is used to manage this dependency
at a higher level, allowing the RDO repo to be used without EPEL if desired.
Though that's not the common case. Also the edge case of avoiding EPEL is
handled with yum --disablerepo=epel ...
So this is a good suggestion and would avoid docs.
However this may involve a little packstack work to handle an EPEL repo
that was now installed by default.
I've logged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/974971 to discuss that.
thanks,
Pádraig.