On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 01:01 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: > Jim Perrin wrote: > >> I still need the real files from centos-release (such as > >> /etc/redhat-release) which may change from time to time (when 4.5 comes > >> out). I could create my own replacement but I think that the files > >> belong in the yumconf package and this may well be a centos bug. > > > > I see this as an interoperability issue, and it should be discussed a > > bit. I'm not convinced that a yumconf package is the way to go, but > > providing the files in centos-release doesn't seem to be the right way > > either. Other opinions? > > > > if the files are (config) type, then a locally user modified version > will superseed the new rpm based one, and will result in your config's > being left alone with the new files being dropped as .rpmnew > > I'd presume this is what happened ? The purpose of this change is so that we mirror what is done by upstream. They provide their update sources in redhat-release file. A separate RPM for yumconf (and up2date-conf) is redundant. Have it be part of yum or up2date is bad ... I have no problem with a sperate yumconf package, but it is not in keeping with upstream. If you produce a package with a new CentOS-Base.repo (and force install it) that overwrites the other file, then when new updates happen it will produce rpmnew files and should not affect you at all. As I said ... i can be easily convinced to to shift back, but shouldn't we try to do things like upstream? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20060905/4a317ca7/attachment-0007.sig>