[CentOS-devel] Is it possible to merge elrepo.org contribute to centos main repository?
centos at track5.de
Wed Feb 26 22:02:23 UTC 2014
On 02/26/2014 09:35 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> On 02/26/2014 08:41 PM, Alexander Arlt wrote:
>> On 02/26/2014 07:50 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>> Not at all. Only EPEL and Elrepo are so essential that I do not know a
>>> good admin that does not use them on at least one CentOS system,
>>> especially for Desktop/Workstation use, or on unsupported hardware like
>> Here. Me. I have various system because of various reasons I can only
>> install RHEL or CentOS. And this will not change.
>> Still, I do use custom repositories with those systems which allow me to
>> install software need on those system. And update that software.
>> Ain't that the whole point of having an Community Enterprise OS?
>>> If good framework is established (3rd party repository wise), then that
>>> stuff can be in some other repository. But in order to do so, there has
>>> to be easy to manage repository hierarchy, without too much messing with
>>> yum config files.
>> We're talking about a seven line config file in /etc/yum.repos.d to add
>> a new repository. And honestly, if I don't know what I'm doing the, it
>> might be a good idea to not do it. Learning curve or not.
> I wrote several e-mails about the topic of priorities. You might want to
> read them first before you assume you know what we are talking about.
> Threads are "Repository structures for SIG and variants in the future"
> (~Jan 13th 2014) and "Repositories in new ecosystem and Desktop version"
> (~Jan 10th 2014).
I didn't want to appear as if I'm fully aware of the whole discussion, I
just jumped in because of the assumption "everybody is using EPEL and
Actually I followed the discussion you mentioned but I don't really
think that a lot of CentOS-/RHEL-User really care about the
Desktop-Ramblings. Still, of course, those are just my assumptions.
If I do have a look at the SIGs-Page of CentOS I still get the feeling,
that quite a lot of CentOS-Users and -Devs also focus on other topics.
>> Maybe, just maybe, a Community Enterprise OS is just not the right
>> choice for this? And maybe, just maybe, putting wings on a cow won't
>> turn it into a proper bird.
> It's not a question if it is possible, I already have full "Desktop"
> version of CentOS, I started with 5.3, (CentOS + 3rd party repositories
> = 22,846 packages available for 6.5) using priorities. And I am yet to
> have ANY problem regarding yum (due to priority hierarchy).
> So as far as I am concerned, I am good, could not be better. Base is
> table, almost unchanged, I replaced only audio/video packages and
> Firefox/Thunderbird (maybe few other packages I can not remember). Only
> problem I have sometimes Skype crashes my GNOME, but that is due to
> Microsoft messing things up. I will be trying either newer or much older
> version to avoid problems. I do not crave after latest and greatest, so
> I like stable system like CentOS but with some apps in addition. If I
> use one distro for server, I want to use same one for Desktop, so I keep
> only repositories for single distro on my server/mirror.
So, you turned the cow into a bird. And you did this just because you
want to have a single distribution. That's fine. It kinda feels weird,
but if it's the way you want it, it's fine. But don't you think it would
have been easier - and probably less nerve-wracking - to just use a more
birdish-type of material?
> The problem comes when someone asks how HE can do the same. Then I have
> to point him on my repository, explain how my repository script works, I
> need to keep release packages updated, etc., but I am out of free time
> to do so on the regular basis. So I just gave up helping people in
> getting stable but full desktop. I let them do what ever stupid thing
> they learn for them self, I let them manually download some stuff that
> does not have dedicated repositories.
Yes, basically you have built a repository for your special needs. And
in my understanding this was - and is - the way the game was meant to be
played by Red Hat.
>> Honestly, why would anybody try to turn something like RHEL 6 into a
>> Desktop, with all those old kernel-stuff, the old libraries and all the
>> fuss you have to cope with - and still end up with something that will
>> not be able to run all the latest gimmicks with the complete set of
>> bells and whistles?
> STABILITY my friend, STABILITY. IT JUST WORKS! I can install my system
> and trust it to be operational after 10 years, with regular updates.
> This especially goes for small businesses or older web surfers that are
> tired of viruses so they get installed CentOS and they or someone else
> just updates their system without worry of thrashed system and
I'm not really getting the point of the Stability-thing if you have to
do so much to turn the cow into a bird. Especially when reading the
paragraphs above. If stability means your desktop being stable and not
crashing - remove skype (there are a lot of other reasons for doing this
besides stability) and be happy. Yet it still will not be 'stable' in
the sense of enterprise-usage.
In my understanding the stability of CentOS is based on the stability of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I never ever in my whole life had the need to
install another kernel. But I also never ever in my whole life bought
hardware not certified for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I understand that
not everybody else has the need for the compatibility of CentOS - I
still don't understand why on earth they go through all the hassle to
use it, if they can buy and use whatever they want.
Ain't that all the point about an enterprise distribution: that you have
the support, the certifications, all the big-dollar-bling-bling? If
you're messing around with all the upstream-provided stuff,
elrepo-kernels and so on, you're already breaking the main (and most
expensive) part of the enterprise thingy. And wasn't CentOS all about
getting the enterprise-grade distribution cloned has close as possible?
Don't get me wrong, if you can find a majority for all your changes and
if it proves to be worth it - I will be the first to thank you and
welcome the changes. Unless your approved changes will break the
enterprise in CentOS.
> I can still install CentOS 5.x on older hardware and it will work like a
> charm, with support and bugfixes. It will not be EOL in 1-2 years, EOL
> policy covers full life-span of average PC hardware. After 10 years even
> poor people in Africa or India will get another PC, used one, that can
> run on CentOS 6.x until end of it's EOL, and on, and on, and on.
Forgive me but the life-span of RHEL or CentOS is not based on the
lifetime of average PC hardware. I do have several machines and
installations of RHEL 4 and we will have full support of hardware and
software till Feb, 28th 2015. Probably longer. That's the E in RHEL and
the ent in CentOS. Maybe I got that wrong and we now get back on the
Entertainment the E and the ent was meant to mean from the beginning.
More information about the CentOS-devel