On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <office at plnet.rs> wrote: > On 10/09/2012 09:37 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic<office at plnet.rs> > wrote: > >> On 09/17/2012 02:58 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > >>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Ned Slider<ned at unixmail.co.uk> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>> > >>>> Besides, your approach simply won't work. If you were to install an > >>>> edited (patched) repo file set to enabled=0, the first time a user > runs > >>>> 'yum update' and the repo file gets updated from the repo the user > will > >>>> be back at the repo's default settings regardless of how the distro > may > >>>> or may not have initially patched the repo file. > >>> > >>> Hmmm, that seems like a bug. Should rpm packages clobber user > configurations? > >>> > >> > >> Sole purpose of the update for repository packages is to replace *.repo > >> file with the one with correct link, but rather then to edit file they > >> replace it, thus defaulting any change you made. > > > > Which doesn't really answer the question of whether locally modified > > config files belong to the administrator or the RPM author.... This > > is something important enough that it really deserves to have the > > 'enabled' and similar options abstracted to something under > > /etc/sysconfig - unless someone still holds onto the hope that one day > > all repositories will be coordinated and not conflict with each other. > > Meanwhile, I'd say such a change should come in as a .rpmnew file so > > you can reconcile the local edits manually (and maybe at least some of > > them would). > > > > I do not disagree with you on this, but I have not made yum config the > way it is now, and I can not tell you if it does create .rpmnew or not. > But Enabled=0 is incorporated into .repo file. > > I personally would like to either have separate files for each repo > entry for links and options (like Enabled), or to have options in > separate database (txt file or not) that would allow much more flexible > combinations and changes. > > As a person running hundreds of CentOS systems in a production environment, I'd like to note a few things: 1- No matter what package it is, and no matter from what repo is is installed, configuration files belong to the administrator, not the packager, so an rpm should NEVER replace a local config file. (this includes yum) 2- All we really need is the ability to install epel and elrepo simply, without having to hunt them down. I've done this so many times, I now include epel-release and elrepo-release (all disabled) in all my cobbler installs automatically. This is the way I feel we are best served. I use other repos too, but truly, epel is essential to most people, so epel-release, at least, should be available in the CentOS repos. -- *Mike SCHMIDT **CTO Intello Technologies Inc. **mike.schmidt at intello.com* *Canada: 1-888-404-6261 x320 USA: 1-888-404-6268 x320 Mobile: 514-409-6898 www.intello.com* * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20121009/b38798b4/attachment-0007.html>