[CentOS-docs] u/d Newsletter/1003 by TimoSchoeler

Thu Apr 22 07:41:07 UTC 2010
Timo Schoeler <timo.schoeler at riscworks.net>

Hash: SHA1

thus Dag Wieers spake:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>> thus R P Herrold spake:
>>>>   Fetch the desired duplicity source code from
>>>> https://code.launchpad.net/duplicity/, unpack it and change
>>>> in its directory. There, just issue
>>>> + {{{
>>>> - python setup.py install
>>>> + python setup.py install}}}
>>> I see the above fragment in the draft newsletter, and frankly
>>> am disappointed at proposed content not using the packaging
>>> system.  It is clearly not a 'best practice'.  The item in
>>> question will run as root, and one assumes will over time be
>>> updated and have security fixes.
>>> In a CentOS publication, we should not be proposing installing
>>> time bombs that a later admin 'cannot see'.  We are all that
>>> later admin as time packages and we forget the details of a
>>> particular installation
>> I absolutely agree with you; my 'plan' was to write it that way (in the
>> draft), and -- if my spare time allows -- build an appropriate RPM and
>> maybe even get it integrated in one of the repos. Then, I could modify
>> it to the 'decent way'.
>> As backup plan, I could just continue and use the not up-to-date
>> rpmforge package.
> Or provide a SPEC file for a duplicity update in RPMforge. It's not that 
> hard, 

I will try to do so ASAP, however my backlog is quite impressive ATM...

> but don't expect someone else to do it for you...



Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)