[CentOS-devel] Shipping an EPEL release

Mike Schmidt mike.schmidt at intello.com
Tue Oct 9 17:00:36 EDT 2012


On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <office at plnet.rs> wrote:

> On 10/09/2012 09:37 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic<office at plnet.rs>
>  wrote:
> >> On 09/17/2012 02:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Ned Slider<ned at unixmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Besides, your approach simply won't work. If you were to install an
> >>>> edited (patched) repo file set to enabled=0, the first time a user
> runs
> >>>> 'yum update' and the repo file gets updated from the repo the user
> will
> >>>> be back at the repo's default settings regardless of how the distro
> may
> >>>> or may not have initially patched the repo file.
> >>>
> >>> Hmmm, that seems like a bug.  Should rpm packages clobber user
> configurations?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sole purpose of the update for repository packages is to replace *.repo
> >> file with the one with correct link, but rather then to edit file they
> >> replace it, thus defaulting any change you made.
> >
> > Which doesn't really answer the question of whether locally modified
> > config files belong to the administrator or the RPM author....  This
> > is something important enough that it really deserves to have the
> > 'enabled' and similar options abstracted to something under
> > /etc/sysconfig - unless someone still holds onto the hope that one day
> > all repositories will be coordinated and not conflict with each other.
> >    Meanwhile, I'd say such a change should come in as a .rpmnew file so
> > you can reconcile the local edits manually (and maybe at least some of
> > them would).
> >
>
> I do not disagree with you on this, but I have not made yum config the
> way it is now, and I can not tell you if it does create .rpmnew or not.
> But Enabled=0 is incorporated into .repo file.
>
> I personally would like to either have separate files for each repo
> entry for links and options (like Enabled), or to have options in
> separate database (txt file or not) that would allow much more flexible
> combinations and changes.
>
>
As a person running hundreds of CentOS systems in a production environment,
I'd like to note a few things:

1- No matter what package it is, and no matter from what repo is is
installed, configuration files belong to the administrator, not the
packager, so an rpm should NEVER replace a local config file. (this
includes yum)

2- All we really need is the ability to install epel and elrepo simply,
without having to hunt them down. I've done this so many times, I now
include epel-release and elrepo-release (all disabled)  in all my cobbler
installs automatically. This is the way I feel we are best served. I use
other repos too, but truly, epel is essential to most people, so
epel-release, at least, should be available in the CentOS repos.

-- 
*Mike SCHMIDT
**CTO
Intello Technologies Inc.
**mike.schmidt at intello.com*
*Canada: 1-888-404-6261 x320
USA: 1-888-404-6268 x320
Mobile: 514-409-6898
www.intello.com*
*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20121009/b38798b4/attachment.html 


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list