Hi all,
I've always used kb, dries and dag's repos in CentOS 4.x.
Now I'm testing CentOS 5.x (congratulation for your great work!) and I wonder if the three popular repos called above are available/compatible for CentOS 5.
I've considered to approach this question to repos mantainers directly, but I know they read and contribute the present list in active way.
Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
Hi all,
I've always used kb, dries and dag's repos in CentOS 4.x.
Now I'm testing CentOS 5.x (congratulation for your great work!) and I wonder if the three popular repos called above are available/compatible for CentOS 5.
Hi Jordi
rpmforge (DAG) works, however I have noticed several issues. The main one with openvpn, openvpn did not work as expected...
regards! epe
Hi Jordi
Hi Ernesto... I think I've seen you before in another list..... :P
rpmforge (DAG) works, however I have noticed several issues. The main one with openvpn, openvpn did not work as expected...
Ok. I hope Karanbir and Dries read my previous message to know about their repos status in relation to version 5.
"JEC" == Jordi Espasa Clofent sistemes.llistes@intergrid.cat
JEC> Hi all, I've always used kb, dries and dag's repos in JEC> CentOS 4.x.
JEC> Now I'm testing CentOS 5.x (congratulation for your great JEC> work!) and I wonder if the three popular repos called JEC> above are available/compatible for CentOS 5.
Note that another option is/will be the Fedora EPEL (``Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux''), which is supported by the Red Hat/Fedora infrastructure, and plans on rebuilding packages from Fedora Extras for RHEL/CentOS 5.
There are still a bunch of issues being hashed out in terms of the naming of the packages (whether or not they'll have a repotag); whether they're going to be building one set of packages and maintaining those versions until the particular enterprise Linux version is retired or build packages from the latest set of Fedora packages (as Extras is supposed to be being rolled into Fedora proper); and, of course, exactly how EPEL will relate to the other, existing, repos that have been supporting enterprise Linux releases.
Their wiki starts at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL, and there's a reasonably active mailing list. I'm hopeful that they'll do things in a way that will relieve at least some of my local package building responsibilities and will do so in a way that allows me to also use other repos where I need to (to provide support for things such as MP3s and DVDs that Red Hat/Fedora won't/can't provide). Thus far, however, I think it's too early to tell.
I know that Dag and Karanbir both participate in the list (I'm making no claims for their satisfaction with how things are going so far). Axel Thimm, who's a Fedora developer who also runs a third-party repo, is also very active with EPEL.
Claire
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Claire Connelly cmc@math.hmc.edu Systems Administrator (909) 621-8754 Department of Mathematics Harvey Mudd College *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 03:09:52PM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
"JEC" == Jordi Espasa Clofent sistemes.llistes@intergrid.cat
JEC> Hi all, I've always used kb, dries and dag's repos in JEC> CentOS 4.x. JEC> Now I'm testing CentOS 5.x (congratulation for your great JEC> work!) and I wonder if the three popular repos called JEC> above are available/compatible for CentOS 5.Note that another option is/will be the Fedora EPEL (``Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux''), which is supported by the Red Hat/Fedora infrastructure, and plans on rebuilding packages from Fedora Extras for RHEL/CentOS 5.
There are still a bunch of issues being hashed out in terms of the naming of the packages (whether or not they'll have a repotag); whether they're going to be building one set of packages and maintaining those versions until the particular enterprise Linux version is retired or build packages from the latest set of Fedora packages (as Extras is supposed to be being rolled into Fedora proper); and, of course, exactly how EPEL will relate to the other, existing, repos that have been supporting enterprise Linux releases.
Their wiki starts at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL, and there's a reasonably active mailing list. I'm hopeful that they'll do things in a way that will relieve at least some of my local package building responsibilities and will do so in a way that allows me to also use other repos where I need to (to provide support for things such as MP3s and DVDs that Red Hat/Fedora won't/can't provide). Thus far, however, I think it's too early to tell.
I know that Dag and Karanbir both participate in the list (I'm making no claims for their satisfaction with how things are going so far). Axel Thimm, who's a Fedora developer who also runs a third-party repo, is also very active with EPEL.
But also very disappointed from the course that EPEL chose to take wrt to all other 3rd party repos. He's currently stripping off repotags from his repo cursing all day people in EPEL that forced him to do this.
Claire
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Claire Connelly cmc@math.hmc.edu Systems Administrator (909) 621-8754 Department of Mathematics Harvey Mudd College *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 03:09:52PM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
I know that Dag and Karanbir both participate in the list (I'm making no claims for their satisfaction with how things are going so far). Axel Thimm, who's a Fedora developer who also runs a third-party repo, is also very active with EPEL.
But also very disappointed from the course that EPEL chose to take wrt to all other 3rd party repos. He's currently stripping off repotags from his repo cursing all day people in EPEL that forced him to do this.
Maybe if we all can agree to some ground rules, then all repos can play nice. See proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/RepositoryCollaboration
-- Rex
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 04:38:04PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 03:09:52PM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
I know that Dag and Karanbir both participate in the list (I'm making no claims for their satisfaction with how things are going so far). Axel Thimm, who's a Fedora developer who also runs a third-party repo, is also very active with EPEL.
But also very disappointed from the course that EPEL chose to take wrt to all other 3rd party repos. He's currently stripping off repotags from his repo cursing all day people in EPEL that forced him to do this.
Maybe if we all can agree to some ground rules, then all repos can play nice. See proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/RepositoryCollaboration
These rules should had been going w/o saying, but sadly the true colors look more like (on discussing repotags):
00:55 < mmcgrath> | I'm just tired of playing politics with people who are trying to define what rules we play by even though they don't honor our rules. 00:55 < mmcgrath> | I mean hell, how many of those 3rd party repos have even signed a cla? 00:55 < mmcgrath> | We're aiming much larger then they are and we have a much different structure as a result.
I'm tired of trying to build bridges. It wore me off in fedora.us days and it's happening again with epel.
Axel Thimm wrote:
00:55 < mmcgrath> | I'm just tired of playing politics with people who are trying to define what rules we play by even though they don't honor our rules.
EPEL is the newcomer in here. Defining new rules with other repositories already in place whilst ignoring rules other repositories might already have in place can lead to that what you're complaining about.
EPEL might be the most open repository at the moment regarding *who* can upload new packages and probably has the most packagers behind it - but the other repositories have the bigger community behind them.
00:55 < mmcgrath> | I mean hell, how many of those 3rd party repos have even signed a cla?
Mike, if you're reading here: Why should other 3rd party repos sign some sort of CLA? Especially: Sign it with/for whom and for what reason?
00:55 < mmcgrath> | We're aiming much larger then they are and we have a much different structure as a result.
As said: EPEL is the new kid on the block at the moment. And what do you mean with "aim larger"?
I'm tired of trying to build bridges. It wore me off in fedora.us days and it's happening again with epel.
Thanks for your opinion.
Ralph
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 04:38:04PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
But also very disappointed from the course that EPEL chose to take wrt to all other 3rd party repos. He's currently stripping off repotags from his repo cursing all day people in EPEL that forced him to do this.
Maybe if we all can agree to some ground rules, then all repos can play nice. See proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/RepositoryCollaboration
These rules should had been going w/o saying
I agree, but this seems necessary for some(*). Without acknowledgment of equal-footing for all parties, progress will be a very uphill battle.
-- Rex
(*) Since I continue to hear gripes about which repos were first or (should) have priority or clout.
Rex Dieter wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 04:38:04PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
But also very disappointed from the course that EPEL chose to take wrt to all other 3rd party repos. He's currently stripping off repotags from his repo cursing all day people in EPEL that forced him to do this.
Maybe if we all can agree to some ground rules, then all repos can play nice. See proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/RepositoryCollaboration
These rules should had been going w/o saying
I agree, but this seems necessary for some(*). Without acknowledgment of equal-footing for all parties, progress will be a very uphill battle.
-- Rex
(*) Since I continue to hear gripes about which repos were first or (should) have priority or clout.
Without straining my brain too much, I find it hard to imagine how you can positively mandate what order the repos should be considered for someone whose needs you don't know. Mine, say.
What I think is needed is a clear, obvious way to say I want rpmforge for madwifi, atrpms for, um, postgresql, Fedora for KDE (I'm being ridiculous, you say? Let me!), and standard Centos5 repos for everything else. Oh, just a mo, I'll have Oracle for Java (assuming it's there).
I don't care whether rpmforge has newer postgresql, it's atrpm's I want, and I want rpmforge madwifi but never postgresql.
Any repo might have newer something that I want, but I don't want the newest, I want the one from the source I nominate.
And so it's perfectly clear to anyone how to do this, the Right Way needs to stick out like Gillie's ears (with apologies to Adam Gilchrist fans).
If this means a modification to yum is required, then a modification to yum is required.
The fact you decide (assuming you do) that rpmforge is the premier third-party repo does not of itself mean that all your users will agree with you.
I got into a bit of a mess with Debian, back when Woody was "stable" and had been for two or more years. There were newer Mozilla, KDE, Gnome, all sorts of stuff built for Woody, and I found myself using a long list of repos, and getting stuff from places I didn't intend.
Debian does have a means if pinning software to particular repos, but one has to read the documentation fairly closely to discover it. Or complain loudly that no such facility exists.
More recently has been the advent of backports.org which has lots of little repos. One for postgresql. One for mysql. One (I expect) for php. (Actually, there may be several sometimes, but if php 5.0 in testing got replaced by php 5.2, then php 5.0 would vanish from backports too). Probably there was one for xen 3.0, I'm not sure I looked.
Once one finds backports.org, it is suitably simple to control what comes from where: in fact, it's hard not to.
Package naming is still important, so as to ensure an easy upgrade from unofficial extras to subsequent official packages. Debian has a policy to guide that too.
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:15:53AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 03:09:52PM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
"JEC" == Jordi Espasa Clofent sistemes.llistes@intergrid.cat
JEC> Hi all, I've always used kb, dries and dag's repos in JEC> CentOS 4.x. JEC> Now I'm testing CentOS 5.x (congratulation for your great JEC> work!) and I wonder if the three popular repos called JEC> above are available/compatible for CentOS 5.Note that another option is/will be the Fedora EPEL (``Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux'') [...] I know that Dag and Karanbir both participate in the list (I'm making no claims for their satisfaction with how things are going so far). Axel Thimm, who's a Fedora developer who also runs a third-party repo, is also very active with EPEL.
But also very disappointed from the course that EPEL chose to take wrt to all other 3rd party repos. He's currently stripping off repotags from his repo cursing all day people in EPEL that forced him to do this.
FWIW I finally stepped down from epel today:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-May/msg00019.html
More time for other projects, like improving "third party CentOS 5 compatibility" (quoting the subject) with the repos that do care about each-other.
-
"Ing. Ernesto Pérez Estévez" -
Axel Thimm -
C.M. Connelly -
John Summerfield -
Jordi Espasa Clofent -
Ralph Angenendt -
Rex Dieter