<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/15/2015 01:09 AM, PatrickD Garvey
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE-bVUkN7kVPEQSEsXrc6jgMu_5St0jd00kZH+633GRUnkdekg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Karanbir Singh <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mail-lists@karan.org"><mail-lists@karan.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 01/09/2015 11:49 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">KB -- I made those changes several months ago (Sep/Oct I believe), with
discussion in IRC. This was after a spate of people in the main channel
having issues with Atomic (there's a name that's going to end up causing
problems...) and the continued use of RPMForge/RepoForge, with no
indication that they're really really bad. As well as the recognition of
the reality that there are a very few repos that are frequently
recommended (and, in the case of EPEL, now easily enabled in CentOS).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think we should do a bit of work and find a tangiable set of standards
that a repo needs to meet in order to be 'endorsed' or rated at a
certain level. Because at the moment it does seem to add value to a repo
or two over others, based on personal opinion.
I am willing to write code to do this validation, but were going to need
a set of good rules to implement.
regards and thanks
- KB
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Maybe it isn't code that needs to be generated.
I obviously wasn't around for any IRC discussion of this page and its
implications.
I don't imagine there is any sort of log of that discussion I could review.
Rhetorical questions and comments:
Is it true some of these repos exist because CentOS wasn't adequate for some
particular purpose, but someone thought they could provide a parallel resource
to easily install additional software?</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, it is. Some people need newer versions for applications than
what the distro can provide. Other need complementary stuff which
the distro or better said RHEL is not willing or not able to
provide.<br>
<br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE-bVUkN7kVPEQSEsXrc6jgMu_5St0jd00kZH+633GRUnkdekg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
From Tom's comment I infer there was a need to warn people away from using some
repos that were consuming significant resources to help folks who had
trusted them.</pre>
</blockquote>
Right. Some repos lead to problems similar to:<br>
<i><br>
Aug 28 14:27:15 <TheAlien> hey there, im having trouble
updating packages on my server. yum update gives a long list of
needed updates and sumarises 'Install 3 Package(s)</i><i><br>
</i><i> / Upgrade 132 Package(s) / Remove 1 Package(s)'
but then says 'package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.remi.x86_64 (which is
newer than mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386) is already installe</i><i>d'
--</i><i><br>
</i><i>Aug 28 14:27:24 <TheAlien> plus several messages
like 'file /usr/bin/mysqlaccess from install of
mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386 conflicts with file from package
mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.r</i><i><br>
</i><br>
Others simply are no longer properly maintained, for instance still
shipping older versions of applications which have known
vulnerabilities.<br>
<i>
</i><br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE-bVUkN7kVPEQSEsXrc6jgMu_5St0jd00kZH+633GRUnkdekg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
It also appears that somehow Fedora's efforts have been mutually beneficial.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, they have but this has nothing to do with the wiki page we
speak about. Incidentally EPEL aims to a high standard so as to make
it suitable for an enterprise-grade distro which CentOS aims to be
and that is why we recommend to all others packagers to follow
similar rules ( when possible and if they make sense, of course ).
However this is by no means a requirement that must be met in order
to have a 3rd party repository listed in the CentOS wiki. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE-bVUkN7kVPEQSEsXrc6jgMu_5St0jd00kZH+633GRUnkdekg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
With these thoughts as background for my thinking, my brainstorm is that the
Special Interest Groups and spins may be the path to solving the need to have
additional non-CentOS resources and know they are sufficiently cooperative.
Proposal:
The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories,
but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent
repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has happened
in the past without naming names.</pre>
</blockquote>
I can only concur with what John has said. You are looking for
problems to fix where there are none. 3 months ago Tom has made a
great job in cleaning the page up ( and several of us assisted him
when he asked for opinions ) and - AFAIK - its current shape
expresses the views of most of the regulars who provide help via the
various CentOS support channels. If and when needed we modify the
page but as it is now it is completely satisfactory for its purpose.
Even if the feelings of some people get hurt by our opinions about
the quality of their work ( i.e. of the packages they provide ).<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>