[CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 01/15/2015 01:09 AM, PatrickD Garvey wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:
>> On 01/09/2015 11:49 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote:
>>> KB -- I made those changes several months ago (Sep/Oct I believe), with
>>> discussion in IRC. This was after a spate of people in the main channel
>>> having issues with Atomic (there's a name that's going to end up causing
>>> problems...) and the continued use of RPMForge/RepoForge, with no
>>> indication that they're really really bad. As well as the recognition of
>>> the reality that there are a very few repos that are frequently
>>> recommended (and, in the case of EPEL, now easily enabled in CentOS).
>> I think we should do a bit of work and find a tangiable set of standards
>> that a repo needs to meet in order to be 'endorsed' or rated at a
>> certain level. Because at the moment it does seem to add value to a repo
>> or two over others, based on personal opinion.
>>
>> I am willing to write code to do this validation, but were going to need
>> a set of good rules to implement.
>>
>> regards and thanks
>>
>> - KB
>>
> Maybe it isn't code that needs to be generated.
>
> I obviously wasn't around for any IRC discussion of this page and its
> implications.
> I don't imagine there is any sort of log of that discussion I could review.
>
> Rhetorical questions and comments:
> Is it true some of these repos exist because CentOS wasn't adequate for some
> particular purpose, but someone thought they could provide a parallel resource
> to easily install additional software?
Yes, it is. Some people need newer versions for applications  than what 
the distro can provide. Other need complementary stuff which the distro 
or better said RHEL is not willing or not able to provide.


[...]
>
>  From Tom's comment I infer there was a need to warn people away from using some
> repos that were consuming significant resources to help folks who had
> trusted them.
Right. Some repos lead to problems similar to:
/
Aug 28 14:27:15 <TheAlien>      hey there, im having trouble updating 
packages on my server. yum update gives a long list of needed updates 
and sumarises 'Install       3 Package(s)//
// / Upgrade     132 Package(s) / Remove        1 Package(s)' but then 
says 'package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.remi.x86_64 (which is newer than 
mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386) is already installe//d' --//
//Aug 28 14:27:24 <TheAlien>      plus several messages like 'file 
/usr/bin/mysqlaccess from install of mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386 conflicts 
with file from package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.r//
/
Others simply are no longer properly maintained, for instance still 
shipping older versions of applications which have known vulnerabilities.
//

[...]
>
> It also appears that somehow Fedora's efforts have been mutually beneficial.

Yes, they have but this has nothing to do with the wiki page we speak 
about. Incidentally EPEL aims to a high standard so as to make it 
suitable for an enterprise-grade distro which CentOS aims to be and that 
is why we recommend to all others packagers to follow similar rules ( 
when possible  and if they make sense, of course ). However this is by 
no means a requirement that must be met in order to have a 3rd party 
repository listed in the CentOS wiki.


> With these thoughts as background for my thinking, my brainstorm is that the
> Special Interest Groups and spins may be the path to solving the need to have
> additional non-CentOS resources and know they are sufficiently cooperative.
>
> Proposal:
> The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories,
> but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent
> repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has happened
> in the past without naming names.
I can only concur with what John has said. You are looking for problems 
to fix where there are none. 3 months ago Tom has made a great job in 
cleaning the page up ( and several of us assisted him when he asked for 
opinions ) and - AFAIK -  its current shape expresses the views of most 
of the regulars who provide help via the various CentOS support 
channels. If and when needed we modify the page but as it is now it is 
completely satisfactory for its purpose. Even if the feelings of some 
people get hurt by our opinions about the quality of their work ( i.e. 
of the packages they provide ).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20150115/f6dc6366/attachment-0001.html>