Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Mar 16, 2007, at 4:01 PM, John Summerfield wrote: > >> Jeff Sheltren wrote: >>> >>> I am agreeable to this, but I would actually prefer to simply mimic >>> upstream -- release 5.0 with the same base pacakges as upstream, and >>> provide necessary updates in the updates repo. I don't see a strong >>> reason to spend time modifying the CD images to contain a few package >>> updates that are easily downloaded after install time. >> >> "easily downloaded?" >> >> How long since you lived with this? I don't have a choice! >> [summer at bilby ~]$ ping -c5 -q beta.centos.org >> ping: unknown host beta.centos.org >> [summer at bilby ~]$ ping -c5 -q beta.centos.org >> PING beta.centos.org (72.13.100.148) 56(84) bytes of data. >> >> >> --- beta.centos.org ping statistics --- >> 5 packets transmitted, 4 received, 20% packet loss, time 13070ms >> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1073.620/1254.659/1491.147/184.761 ms, pipe 3 > > Well, actually my Internet connection at home as been down for a week > now - yay lazy Caribbean islands! > > But back on topic, if connectivity to mirrors is such a big issue, why > not mirror the needed packages while you are online and then point your > machines to a local mirror? Through a modem? > > It is not like these packages will not be available when CentOS 5 goes > public, ti's just a matter of if they'll be on the CD or not. In my > opinion, it's not worth the trouble to modify the CDs and installer, but > I'm not the one doing the work, so I'll leave that decision up to the > centos developers. _I_ can download the ISOs at work, but not everyone is even that well-placed. Keeping up2date is a lot more bother. Laptops, nt so bad, but non-portables? My WBEL system hasn't been updated. -- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Please do not reply off-list