Johnny Hughes wrote: >> >>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 problem is an rpm issue where if you delete a config file, it will 'come back' when an update is installed. > > > 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. Does the upstream contain the yum confg files? If not then I don't think CentOS should be adding the files there. I don't use up2date so I can't comment on that. In the past CentOS (yum) has required a yumconf, which is still the case. The finger could also be pointed at yum. Perhaps I need to change my reposdir config. John. > > 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? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel -- John Newbigin Computer Systems Officer Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin