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

Thu Jan 15 04:34:44 UTC 2015
PatrickD Garvey <patrickdgarveyt at gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
> 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 installed' --
> 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 ).
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-docs mailing list
> CentOS-docs at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs

Thank you for the comments on my conjectures. I will integrate them
with my previous data about how this project works.

I guess I'm learning I should have let Karanbir Singh handle his own
suggestion that if the article seemed to grade the various repos,
someone needed to create an objective yardstick.

I hope you'll remember I offered some up-to-date contents for the link
anchors to those repositories. No one seems to have examined them for
validity. I have never used yum or git. I have no way to evaluate the
utility of the links that are now in the article. Should they be