"JP" == Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com
Jim,
JP> This was discussed before implementation, in the -devel JP> channel on IRC. The full ramifications weren't felt JP> initially because it worked fine for stock centos. If JP> you'd like to participate in the discussions, you're JP> welcome to join the irc channel.
Like, I suspect, most people using CentOS, I'm not paid to work on the OS, and I don't have time to hang out on IRC on the off chance that someone will bring up something that might completely screw up my systems down the road.
To be frank, saying, ``Oh, we talked about that on IRC,'' is about as useful as saying, ``Jennie, Bob, and I talked about it over a drink at the Boo Bar.''
IRC is a great place to work out implementation details and maybe even do some thought experiments to imagine what the impact might be, but mailing lists are a much better place to have real discussions, especially when your changes might impact people outside the tiny circle of people who frequent the IRC channel.
Claire
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Claire Connelly cmc@math.hmc.edu Systems Administrator (909) 621-8754 Department of Mathematics Harvey Mudd College *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 18:22 -0500, C.M. Connelly wrote:
Like, I suspect, most people using CentOS, I'm not paid to work on the OS, and I don't have time to hang out on IRC on the off chance that someone will bring up something that might completely screw up my systems down the road.
To be frank, saying, ``Oh, we talked about that on IRC,'' is about as useful as saying, ``Jennie, Bob, and I talked about it over a drink at the Boo Bar.''
IRC is a great place to work out implementation details and maybe even do some thought experiments to imagine what the impact might be, but mailing lists are a much better place to have real discussions, especially when your changes might impact people outside the tiny circle of people who frequent the IRC channel.
Will come out of my "lurker" closet to chime in agreement with Claire. This would seem to be the appropriate list to discuss the philosophy and implications of development decisions. I subscribed originally because of testing packages and wanting to provide feedback through the appropriate channel. I have stayed because of interest in where the development is headed and the opportunity to see what the developers are thinking in a high signal-to-noise environment.
I also don't get paid to develop CentOS, and don't have time to hang out on IRC, but can give a bit back to the community by providing feedback, bug reports, and occasional help on the users list. [Although I find my opinions are sometimes not shared by the developers, hay, that's what community dialog is all about, and I tend to defer to their opinions and avoid pointless debates and flame wars. But I digress...]
Please do consider more discussions on issues such as the yumconf approach on this list.
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 09:09 +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
I still would like (at a minimum) to see the files put back into the yumconf package. Even better would be yumconf-centos which provides yumconf.
Agree.
Thanks for listening, and for the great OS.
Phil
Heya Phil,
Phil Schaffner wrote:
Will come out of my "lurker" closet to chime in agreement with Claire. This would seem to be the appropriate list to discuss the philosophy and implications of development decisions.
agreed.
I subscribed originally because of testing packages and wanting to provide feedback through the appropriate channel. I have stayed because of interest in where the development is headed and the opportunity to see what the developers are thinking in a high signal-to-noise environment.
I also don't get paid to develop CentOS, and don't have time to hang out on IRC, but can give a bit back to the community by providing feedback, bug reports, and occasional help on the users list. [Although I find my opinions are sometimes not shared by the developers, hay, that's what community dialog is all about, and I tend to defer to their opinions and avoid pointless debates and flame wars. But I digress...]
you know, I actually appreciate people who make noises when we do stuff that they do and dont agree with. Isnt that what open source is all about ? The ability to bring in lots of eyes on simple issues ? We all gain, all around.
so please dont stop and/or hold back. Flame wars only happen when one side refuses to accept the others point of view. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, and besides a flamefest every now and then is also a good thing :)
Please do consider more discussions on issues such as the yumconf approach on this list.
yes, we know that we should have made a bit of noise about this yumconf issue before it went out into the wild. I think we've all learn't a lesson here.
- KB
Hay, Karanbir:
On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 08:40 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Heya Phil,
Phil Schaffner wrote:
Will come out of my "lurker" closet to chime in agreement with Claire.
...
I also don't get paid to develop CentOS, and don't have time to hang out on IRC, but can give a bit back to the community by providing feedback, bug reports, and occasional help on the users list. [Although I find my opinions are sometimes not shared by the developers, hay, that's what community dialog is all about, and I tend to defer to their opinions and avoid pointless debates and flame wars. But I digress...]
you know, I actually appreciate people who make noises when we do stuff that they do and dont agree with. Isnt that what open source is all about ? The ability to bring in lots of eyes on simple issues ? We all gain, all around.
so please dont stop and/or hold back. Flame wars only happen when one side refuses to accept the others point of view.
Don't worry about that - just ask anybody who knows me off-line. I'm not the shrinking violet type. :-) When I decline to reply, it's generally either a "religious" issue (e.g. an emacs vs. vi class of debate) or because I see the point and can't disagree.
I also encourage anyone else to engage in serious dialog.
I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, and besides a flamefest every now and then is also a good thing :)
More fun to read than to participate in IMHO, but they can be entertaining if the content is original and not carried on to the point of tedium.
Regards, Phil
Please do consider more discussions on issues such
as the yumconf
approach on this list.
yes, we know that we should have made a bit of noise about this yumconf issue before it went out into the wild. I think we've all learn't a lesson here.
I am gad you agree-accept that the core developers learn a lesson :-), I was a litle sad because I could not see any positive reaction to all our complains and ideas to get both side happy (just one srpm to give two packages)
I can understand also that you make such a public change just when another developer speak :-) maybe is an effect of "not everybody's words have the same weight". I personally agree with that way of thinking but I beleave if there was one thing that drive people from whitebox to centos at the begining was the strong decision control over the whitebox project that Jonh had and don't want to give away, Centos promise the opposite. It will be sad that that promise just demise over time (across consolidation of the project)
please, I know that my words are one of the less weighted :-) because I just use and make promotion of the CentOS project (not big deal) but maybe other peoples has the same impresion....
cu roger PD: please accept my appologies for my bag english :-)
__________________________________________ RedHat Certified Engineer ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified Network Associate ( CCNA )
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Roger PeXa Escobio wrote:
I am gad you agree-accept that the core developers learn a lesson :-), I was a litle sad because I could not see any positive reaction to all our complains and ideas to get both side happy (just one srpm to give two packages)
you seem mistaken about one thing - there really wasent any real userbase problems with this shift. We had hardly any noise at all from the userbase ( remember there are a _lot_ of people using CentOS directly ). The noise came from only a few people.
I can understand also that you make such a public change just when another developer speak :-)
i dont know what you mean by that.
maybe is an effect of "not everybody's words have the same weight". I personally agree with that way of thinking but I beleave if there was one thing that drive people from whitebox to centos at the begining was the strong decision control over the whitebox project that Jonh had and don't want to give away, Centos promise the opposite. It will be sad that that promise just demise over time (across consolidation of the project)
again, i dont know what you are trying to imply here. CentOS isnt a one man setup, and all the developers talk to each other just fine. Whitebox is a one man's part time hobby. I dont even understand how you can compare the two.
--- Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Roger PeXa Escobio wrote:
I am gad you agree-accept that the core developers learn a lesson :-), I was a litle sad because I
could
not see any positive reaction to all our complains
and
ideas to get both side happy (just one srpm to
give
two packages)
you seem mistaken about one thing - there really wasent any real userbase problems with this shift. We had hardly any noise at all from the userbase ( remember there are a _lot_ of people using CentOS directly ). The noise came from only a few people.
yes, you may right, but you got a litle noise from this list. :-) not exactly "users", more or less "powered users" :-)
maybe is an effect of "not everybody's words have
the
same weight". I personally agree with that way of thinking but I beleave if there was one thing that drive people from whitebox to centos at the
begining
was the strong decision control over the whitebox project that Jonh had and don't want to give away, Centos promise the opposite. It will be sad that
that
promise just demise over time (across
consolidation of
the project)
again, i dont know what you are trying to imply here. CentOS isnt a one man setup, and all the developers talk to each other just fine. Whitebox is a one man's part time hobby. I dont even understand how you can compare the two.
that is why centos is much-much better solution than whitebox (from my point of view) I agree that Centos is not a one man's work, is evident that developers talk and share ideas a lot, that is great, but you might say 'core developers' insted of just 'developers', and that is what I try to point out.
I very wellcome your messages asking for opinions about what to do with packages in the testing repo, this kind of 'request of help' in the _developer_ list is very-very good thing, it encorage 'powered users' to be part of the project in some degree, and my point was that that kind of request was miss from this list since a lot of time ago, even when importants decision were made none of the developers ( core developers) ask for opinions in this list. so I just wonder if one of the objetive of this list was miss .... any way, I just congratulate you and the rest of core developers for let us help you with our opinions by this list :-) again, that was my impresion, I could be 200% wrong, and never was like that
cu roger
__________________________________________ RedHat Certified Engineer ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified Network Associate ( CCNA )
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Roger Peña Escobio wrote:
again, that was my impresion, I could be 200% wrong, and never was like that
I think you are wrong. Just look over the archives of the past few months. Some examples of the CentOS developers asking for community input over the last few months.:
- Yesterday's e-mail asking opinions about the testing repository. - Johnny's e-mail a while back soliciting opinions about the plus kernel. - The invitation to help writing documentation and participating in the Wiki. Many Wiki-related proposals have been discussed on mailing-lists. - Discussion about continuance of the SPARC port. - Karanbir's requests for feedback on the server CD. - Karanbir's request to write a plugin that deals with updating yum itself.
And the list goes on. I think the problem is that it is hard to find people who contribute time to the project on a constant and permanent basis. Besides that, CentOS is an enterprise distribution, so it is quite natural that the opinion of the CentOS Developers (who have proven their expertise and reliability) is weighed heavier than those of "some people who just pass by".
Remember that it is often better for a technical project to function as a meritocracy than a democracy.
-- Daniel
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 08:40:57AM +0100, Karanbir Singh enlightened us:
Heya Phil,
Phil Schaffner wrote:
Will come out of my "lurker" closet to chime in agreement with Claire. This would seem to be the appropriate list to discuss the philosophy and implications of development decisions.
agreed.
I subscribed originally because of testing packages and wanting to provide feedback through the appropriate channel. I have stayed because of interest in where the development is headed and the opportunity to see what the developers are thinking in a high signal-to-noise environment.
I also don't get paid to develop CentOS, and don't have time to hang out on IRC, but can give a bit back to the community by providing feedback, bug reports, and occasional help on the users list. [Although I find my opinions are sometimes not shared by the developers, hay, that's what community dialog is all about, and I tend to defer to their opinions and avoid pointless debates and flame wars. But I digress...]
you know, I actually appreciate people who make noises when we do stuff that they do and dont agree with. Isnt that what open source is all about ? The ability to bring in lots of eyes on simple issues ? We all gain, all around.
so please dont stop and/or hold back. Flame wars only happen when one side refuses to accept the others point of view. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, and besides a flamefest every now and then is also a good thing :)
Please do consider more discussions on issues such as the yumconf approach on this list.
yes, we know that we should have made a bit of noise about this yumconf issue before it went out into the wild. I think we've all learn't a lesson here.
Just to sort of close out the thread, what has been determined as The Right Way (TM) to manage this? Rebuild centos-release?
Matt
Matt Hyclak wrote:
Just to sort of close out the thread, what has been determined as The Right Way (TM) to manage this? Rebuild centos-release?
The right-way is whatever way works for you. if you dont want the centos-base.repo to be installed and used, just remove it and touch it back in, so rpm wont overwrite it.
Just to sort of close out the thread, what has been determined as The Right Way (TM) to manage this? Rebuild centos-release?
I'd say either rm Centos-Base.repo && touch Centos-Base.repo, or build a custom yumconf rpm for RHEL boxen. I ended up going for the latter because I wanted access to centosplus and yum from the centos repos on my rhel boxen. Other solutions may work for you.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Claire,
C.M. Connelly wrote:
Like, I suspect, most people using CentOS, I'm not paid to work on the OS,
Let me surprise you by saying that noone is paid to work on CentOS, its a complete volunteer only setup. hell, it even costs me major $funds and lots-a-time, to be involved with the CentOS Project, as I suspect is the case with every one of the developers.
We'd like to grow from here, into an organisation that can throw some finances behind some of the work, as well as further expand on the work we are doing. And your continued donations help to that aim.
and I don't have time to hang out on IRC on the off chance that someone will bring up something that might completely screw up my systems down the road.
Well, in this case - had things been done properly on your machine, nothing would have broken. We've been over this a few times now.
To be frank, saying, ``Oh, we talked about that on IRC,'' is about as useful as saying, ``Jennie, Bob, and I talked about it over a drink at the Boo Bar.''
For matters that only Jennie, Bob and I need to talk about, that is indeed a good way to get this done. Just talk about them :)
IRC is a great place to work out implementation details and maybe even do some thought experiments to imagine what the impact might be, but mailing lists are a much better place to have real discussions, especially when your changes might impact people outside the tiny circle of people who frequent the IRC channel.
its not just a tiny circle, we *require* all developers to be on IRC.
- K
PS: why does your MUA break threads ?
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 16:22 -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
"JP" == Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com
Jim,
JP> This was discussed before implementation, in the -devel JP> channel on IRC. The full ramifications weren't felt JP> initially because it worked fine for stock centos. If JP> you'd like to participate in the discussions, you're JP> welcome to join the irc channel.Like, I suspect, most people using CentOS, I'm not paid to work on the OS, and I don't have time to hang out on IRC on the off chance that someone will bring up something that might completely screw up my systems down the road.
That comment is utterly ridiculous.
You seem to be under the misconception that someone is getting paid to work on CentOS.
No one has EVER been paid one thin dime to work on CentOS ... nor has anyone ever been charged one thin dime to download or use it.
All the developers of CentOS donate their time and their own boxes. We do get hardware and mirror donations, but either the hardware is donated by others OR the developers buy it themselves. I have 4 main build boxes to build 3 different arches, 1 of which was donated the others I bought to build CentOS. These boxes can not be used for anytihng else, as they have to have the build environmnet strictly controlled to produce good RPMS for CentOS. The story is much the same for the other developers. Not only do we not get paid, it costs us something to build CentOS.
What makes anyone here think that I have 30-50 hours a week to GIVE to the CentOS project for free. How about my $500.00 a month electric bill because I am running 4 build servers running 24x7, or my $99.00 a month internet bill so I can quickly upload ISOs.
The developers pay their own expenses, they donate their weekends, vacations, and off work hours to make CentOS happen, and most of them have done it for more than 2 years.
They spend their time "hanging out on IRC on the off chance that" someone wants to talk about the way the upstream provider does their updates. They spend time helping people stand up a dhcp server, set up TLS with post fix, doing DDNS. They do this on many CentOS IRC channels.
To be frank, saying, ``Oh, we talked about that on IRC,'' is about as useful as saying, ``Jennie, Bob, and I talked about it over a drink at the Boo Bar.''
If that is not the kind of OS you want, then you can pay $2500.00 a pop for a much more professional one. Oh, but every update cycle, they still make major changes. Look at the new things added this update cycle.
IRC is a great place to work out implementation details and maybe even do some thought experiments to imagine what the impact might be, but mailing lists are a much better place to have real discussions, especially when your changes might impact people outside the tiny circle of people who frequent the IRC channel.
That might be true and MANY things are worked out devel list. MANY, MANY things are discussed here. However, the yum configuration files, as well as the ones for up2date and any other update mechanism need to be in centos-release ... and that is where they are staying. Read below for the facts.
---------------------------------------------------
Facts as to why centos-yumconf was discontinued and why the configuration files are in centos-relase for CentOS-4:
1. The upstream package up2date-4.4.69-25.src.rpm (in RHEL 4) has this in the package: -------------------------- # in rhel4/fc this file moved to redhat-releases %if %{is_RHEL_3} %config(noreplace) /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources %endif --------------------------
The upstream package redhat-release-4AS-5.5.src.rpm (the latest RHEL 4 AS package) has this in the package:
-------------------------- mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn install -m 644 sources $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn --------------------------
So redhat-release is where the configuration file for up2date lives. This was changed upstream at the release of RHEL-4 and is still the way it is being done.
2. The file fedora-release-3-9.src.rpm contains these from fedora core 3 contains these lines:
------------------------- mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/yum.repos.d install -m 644 sources $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources for file in fedora*repo ; do install -m 644 $file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/yum.repos.d done -------------------------
So fedora-release is where the configuration files for up2date and yum live. This is true for every Fedora release after FC3 as well. (Though up2date as gone away, the update systems have their configuration files in the fedora-release file).
3. The file redhat-release-4.91Server-1.src.rpm does not have any .repo files as there was none produced with the beta ... however it does have this code:
------------------------- mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn install -m 644 sources $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn
#mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/yum.repos.d #for file in redhat*repo ; do # install -m 644 $file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/yum.repos.d #done -------------------------
So in the upcoming RHEL5, the sources file still lives in redhat-release and I was told that when repo files are distributed, they will be distributed via redhat-release.
4. There is an apt included in CentOS Extras and the configuration file was included in that package. If a newer apt is provided somewhere else and if it replaces the old apt, it also erases the configuration file for CentOS updates. That happened to several CentOS users. Moving the configuration file for apt to redhat-release solves that problem too.
--------------------------------------------------------------- For all the above reasons, all update configurations belong in the centos-release file. That is how it is consistently being done and it is what we are doing.
I apologize for not discussing this issue on this list before it was done, however it is still where those files belong. One of the things that is in our goals is to be more like upstream. It just makes sense to do it the same way where ever possible ... I am sorry that this affected some power users in an unexpected way, but it is still where the files belong.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 06:59 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 16:22 -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
"JP" == Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com
<snip>
Like, I suspect, most people using CentOS, I'm not paid to work on the OS, and I don't have time to hang out on IRC on the off chance that someone will bring up something that might completely screw up my systems down the road.
That comment is utterly ridiculous.
<snip the response about how we all work for free: irrelevant>
Your the second (3rd?) responder to miss/ignore the point? I *guess* you missed it since you launch into a (emotionally inspired?) response that appears defensive, as well as counter-productive, IMO.
If I may be permitted a guess, based on an impartial reading? Her point was that her particular situation does not allow her the luxury of monitoring the IRC stuff as well as the lists. I have that luxury and choose *not* to monitor multiple sources.
Everybody's situation is different. A *consistency* of process benefits all. If the discussion occurs on IRC and final decision occurs there, it does take some effort to make sure that at least a notification appears on the appropriate list(s). If there is not a formal procedure in place to assure this occurs, individuals are easily forgiven for overlooking that step.
But once that sort of failure is identified, there is no forgiveness for the "organization" if they don't expend at least as much effort in trying to ensure that the blunder is not repeated as they did telling the complainants they were wrong because they could have done a or b or c...
Since there are multiple "victims" (based on posts), it should not be viewed as an easily-dismissed aberration by one lax user.
As to the movement of the fails, the complaints I recall are not entirely that they were moved, but that they were moved without any notification apparent to those particular users. Of course it is not reasonable for the project to try to anticipate all possible field- implemented variations that may be affected by any change. But that does not mean, and you do *not* say/imply, that you should just ignore the possible damaging effects of changes *Of_which_you_are_aware*.
As one possible solution that rational (I guess that means "non- engineering" types! ;-) beings might consider is to require a notification of change to whatever list is deemed most extensive in coverage, or even multiple lists, *when_a_change_has_been_identified_as_having_possible_effect* in the user community.
If this is beyond the scope of what CentOS hopes to achieve, then a simple say so would also be considered sufficient by all... I would *hope*.
MHO -- Bill
--- Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 16:22 -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
"JP" == Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com
Jim,
JP> This was discussed before implementation,in the -devel
JP> channel on IRC. The full ramificationsweren't felt
JP> initially because it worked fine for stockcentos. If
JP> you'd like to participate in thediscussions, you're
JP> welcome to join the irc channel.Like, I suspect, most people using CentOS, I'm not
paid to work on
the OS, and I don't have time to hang out on IRC
on the off chance
that someone will bring up something that might
completely screw
up my systems down the road.
That comment is utterly ridiculous.
You seem to be under the misconception that someone is getting paid to work on CentOS.
No one has EVER been paid one thin dime to work on CentOS ... nor has anyone ever been charged one thin dime to download or use it.
All the developers of CentOS donate their time and their own boxes. We do get hardware and mirror donations, but either the hardware is donated by others OR the developers buy it themselves. I have 4 main build boxes to build 3 different arches, 1 of which was donated the others I bought to build CentOS. These boxes can not be used for anytihng else, as they have to have the build environmnet strictly controlled to produce good RPMS for CentOS. The story is much the same for the other developers. Not only do we not get paid, it costs us something to build CentOS.
What makes anyone here think that I have 30-50 hours a week to GIVE to the CentOS project for free. How about my $500.00 a month electric bill because I am running 4 build servers running 24x7, or my $99.00 a month internet bill so I can quickly upload ISOs.
The developers pay their own expenses, they donate their weekends, vacations, and off work hours to make CentOS happen, and most of them have done it for more than 2 years.
They spend their time "hanging out on IRC on the off chance that" someone wants to talk about the way the upstream provider does their updates. They spend time helping people stand up a dhcp server, set up TLS with post fix, doing DDNS. They do this on many CentOS IRC channels.
To be frank, saying, ``Oh, we talked about that on
IRC,'' is about
as useful as saying, ``Jennie, Bob, and I talked
about it over a
drink at the Boo Bar.''
If that is not the kind of OS you want, then you can pay $2500.00 a pop for a much more professional one. Oh, but every update cycle, they still make major changes. Look at the new things added this update cycle.
IRC is a great place to work out implementation
details and maybe
even do some thought experiments to imagine what
the impact might
be, but mailing lists are a much better place to
have real
discussions, especially when your changes might
impact people
outside the tiny circle of people who frequent the
IRC channel.
That might be true and MANY things are worked out devel list. MANY, MANY things are discussed here. However, the yum configuration files, as well as the ones for up2date and any other update mechanism need to be in centos-release ... and that is where they are staying. Read below for the facts.
Facts as to why centos-yumconf was discontinued and why the configuration files are in centos-relase for CentOS-4:
- The upstream package up2date-4.4.69-25.src.rpm
(in RHEL 4) has this in the package:
# in rhel4/fc this file moved to redhat-releases %if %{is_RHEL_3} %config(noreplace) /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources %endif
The upstream package redhat-release-4AS-5.5.src.rpm (the latest RHEL 4 AS package) has this in the package:
mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn install -m 644 sources $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn
So redhat-release is where the configuration file for up2date lives. This was changed upstream at the release of RHEL-4 and is still the way it is being done.
- The file fedora-release-3-9.src.rpm contains
these from fedora core 3 contains these lines:
mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/yum.repos.d install -m 644 sources $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources for file in fedora*repo ; do install -m 644 $file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/yum.repos.d done
So fedora-release is where the configuration files for up2date and yum live. This is true for every Fedora release after FC3 as well. (Though up2date as gone away, the update systems have their configuration files in the fedora-release file).
- The file redhat-release-4.91Server-1.src.rpm
does not have any .repo files as there was none produced with the beta ... however it does have this code:
mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn install -m 644 sources $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/sysconfig/rhn
#mkdir -p -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/yum.repos.d #for file in redhat*repo ; do # install -m 644 $file $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/yum.repos.d
#done
So in the upcoming RHEL5, the sources file still lives in redhat-release and I was told that when repo files are distributed, they will be distributed via redhat-release.
- There is an apt included in CentOS Extras and
the configuration file was included in that package. If a newer apt is provided somewhere else and if it replaces the old apt, it also erases the configuration file
thank you very-very much john I really appreciate this messages and now I fully understand the positions of Centos's developers I must say that now I support the move even if some working scenarios failed with the update
again, thanks roger
__________________________________________ RedHat Certified Engineer ( RHCE ) Cisco Certified Network Associate ( CCNA )
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-
C.M. Connelly -
danieldk＠pobox.com -
Jim Perrin -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Matt Hyclak -
Phil Schaffner -
Roger Pe�a Escobio -
William L. Maltby