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, but don't expect someone else to do it for you... -- -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]