fesco

#2810 Request for advice: thirdparty EL repo conflicting with EPEL
Closed: Invalid by mystro256. Opened by mystro256.

Closed: Invalid
Reopen Issue

Hi, I was just looking for advise from FESCo, as I didn't see anything explicitly documented.

Two packages have been introduced into EPEL 8 and 9 (ported from Fedora):
- rocminfo
- rocm-device-libs

and I have another package "rocm-opencl" under package review that I intend on pushing to EPEL after Fedora.

These packages conflict the RHEL/CentOS ROCm repositories provided by AMD [1]. For now I suggested to them to set their repo priority to 50 (default is 99), but I would like to foster a good symbiotic relationship, as they rely on packages from EPEL.

So my questions are: is there any specific advise I can give other than "just don't conflict with EPEL package names"? Is there any documentation targeted towards 3rd party repositories with in regards to EPEL? Are there some good conventions I can suggest to avoid conflicts in the future?

I noticed some documentation, but it appears targeted to Fedora, not EPEL [2].

Thanks!

[1] e.g. http://repo.radeon.com/rocm/centos8/latest/main/
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Third_Party_Repository_Policy/

I think this issue should probibly go to the epel sig instead of fesco...

Can you re-file it there?

https://pagure.io/epel/

Or post to the epel-devel list?

EPEL sig may want to just follow the Fedora policy here, or may want to do something else...

Ok thanks @kevin , I refiled it here:
https://pagure.io/epel/issue/185

Metadata Update from @mystro256:
- Issue close_status updated to: Invalid
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Metadata
None
None
None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.