On 5/10/05, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Tuesday 10 May 2005 15:45, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Knaddison wrote:
On 5/10/05, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
My complaint isn't as much with the repository as it's with yum itself for blowing chunks and completely failing.
The problem isn't yum ... it is the 304 status code from apache
Well, one can argue semantics, but it takes two to tango. While apache shouldn't be sending that code, perhaps, yum is still responding to the code in an inappropriate manner (if the file hasn't changed, use the local copy, this being repomd.xml we're talking about).
So, to stay in your metaphor, if I go out on the dance floor and my partner steps on my foot because she can't tango, does that make it a flaw in my dance technique? No.
In fact, there is a discussion on this topic already: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum-devel/2005-May/thread.html#114
Already on too many mailing lists. Not another. I just finally got rid of my last Fedora Core box and have unsubscribed from the Fedora-list (and -test and -devel) quagmire. Cut my mailing volume significantly.
If you want to tilt at the windmills by all means, but if you want a meaningful response the place to get it is a yum mailing list.
I've looked closely at the whole strawman of 'if one repo doesn't work, then you might get software installed from a repo where you don't expect it to come from' and found it full of holes.
<snip lots of info>
You disagree with the maintainer. You seem to have strong opinions on this. Seems like it is time for you to find a new tool for the job or, if you really feel strong in your convictions to fork.
Greg