On 09/28/2011 11:16 AM, Kevin Stange wrote: > On 09/28/2011 04:09 AM, Xavier Bachelot wrote: >> On 09/28/2011 10:39 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: >>> Време: 09/28/2011 10:31 AM, Xavier Bachelot пише: >>>> On 09/23/2011 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>>>> On 09/22/2011 08:16 PM, Ben Galliart wrote: >>>>>> On 09/17/2011, Karanbir Singh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Now back to the question on hand, centos-release-cr in 5.7.. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps the best place for the centos-release-cr is in the updates/ >>>>>>> repo, rather than the /cr/ repo, since that way it would further reduce >>>>>>> the barrier for people to opt-in, a simple 'yum install >>>>>>> centos-releae-cr' would get them on the track, and keep them there till >>>>>>> such time as they want to opt-out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there any ETA as to when this could be done or at least decided on? >>>>> >>>>> There is no need to upgrade anything. If you installed the package, you >>>>> are on CR ... then and now. >>>>> >>>>> The CentOS-CR repo points to /5/cr/ (which is 5.7 now and was 5.6 when >>>>> the repo file was released). >>>>> >>>>> It (/cr/) is currently empty because 5.7/os and 5.7/updates contain all >>>>> the RPMS that are required to update from 5.6 (or any other version of >>>>> CentOS). >>>>> >>>>> When 5.8 is released, the RPMs that are part of 5.8 will get put into >>>>> the /5.7/cr/ and allow people who are opted in to get the updates before >>>>> the 5.8 release. >>>>> >>>>> I think maybe putting the RPM in "extras", so it is easier to install is >>>>> doable ... but not a huge issue. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, I have put it there. centos-release-cr is now in extras. >>>>> >>>> What's the reasoning for putting centos-release-cr in the extras repo ? >>>> Imho, the package would fit better in either the updates or cr >>>> repositories (with a preference for the later), because these 2 repos >>>> allows to get upstream updates and only that, while extras carries a lot >>>> of packages not coming from upstream. Providing a repository yum >>>> configuration from within said repository is quite usual for other repos >>>> and it looks strange to have to use one repo to get the conf for another. >>>> >>> >>> Base repos must reflect what upstream is publishing. Thus, any extra >>> packages must go elswhere. >>> >> This package is special, as it provides only yum confs and no binaries >> or anything else, and is needed to actually get the updates upstream is >> publishing. To be a bit bold, this is not different than the >> centos-release package, which is not in extras either. >> Actually, the cr repo definition could just be added to the >> centos-release package, possibly disabled by default. > > No, no, no, why do we want to sabotage CR? Why does everyone hate it so > much? > > If it's going to be in the base release file and disabled by default, > now we make it even harder, instead of (easy) "yum install" or (less > easy) wget into proper place, now you're saying users are going to need > to edit files or use "yum --enablerepo" to get updates. > > This is an important repo with security patches that could otherwise be > months delayed. This should not be something hidden from users. > > I still think it should be opt-out, but I can accept that it is not in > the mission to break individual release compatibility with upstream by > default. Let's NOT intentionally make it harder to install this, > please, please. > I certainly don't want to sabotage cr and I completely agree it is mandatory to close the security updates gap between point releases, and as such, I very much welcome the work done on this. I think at this point my preference would go to have the cr repo definition in the centos-release package and have it enabled by default, just like the regular updates repo (and actually, I would even say extras should not be enabled by default in order to be even closer to what upstream provides, but this is a different matter). I said the cr could be disabled by default only because some people are of the opinion it should be opt-in rather than opt-out, but that's another point to discuss. What I'd like to be cleared now is how to have the repo definition available, as easily as possible. Regards, Xavier