Dag Wieers wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, David Hrb�c( wrote: > >> Karanbir Singh napsal(a): >>> The C4 fasttrack repo is built in sync with upstream, there is no >>> fasttrack on C5 ( go look at mirror.centos.org ). >>> >>> - KB >> >> I know, C5 is empty for now. I expect to have fast(t)rack only RPMs here. > > Me too. I think a 'centosfix' repository with lower release numbers than > the expected RH fix may be useful. Calling it centosfix also makes it > obvious these are centos packages, and not RH rebuild packages. > > This 'centosfix' concept could be stretched to fix some other packages > with known problems until upstream gets them fixed. And is a deliberate > opt-in from users that need them (and understand the risks). That seems moderately sensible, but it should be defined in the standard Centos release files. As should testing and fasttrack. > > If there is a market for the slow-perl fix, and more of these packages > would see the light of day, I would prefer a 'centosfix' repository over > a mixed fast(t)rack repository. But only if we can deliver... A first-run option to enable these repos (and maybe a system-config[1] tool to reconfigure available repos) would highlight the fact that these repos exist. [1] or maybe yum could be extended to list and change the state of repos. Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu -- Advice http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 You cannot reply off-list:-)