On 03/29/2015 09:32 AM, Carl George wrote:
https://gist.github.com/cgtx/b854281462a18007f509
If this looks familiar, it's because I used the IUS SafeRepo Initiative as a starting point. Please share your feedback and ideas.
Sure:
Must not have the same name as a stock distribution package.
Must not automatically install, upgrade, or replace stock distribution packages when the repository is enabled.
How do the above two rules affect a repository that is not enabled by default but would end up replacing stock packages if it is enabled by the user? As an example, this would happen with CentOS's own centosplus repository which is included in the centos-release package.
What about a 3rd-party group that distributes a .repo file with one repo that is enabled by default which is intended (by policy) to not replace stock packages, and another that comes disabled with explicit instructions on how to enable it and use it (more or less) safely, the latter being intended to replace stock packages?
Peter