William Warren wrote: > replies inline No need to declare it, being an "old guy" in Internet terms, I actually prefer bottom posting (but don't mind either way). > straw man. this topic isabout yum..not the rest of the > system. I said i don't want to have to change yum t all or > mess with configuring its config files. It's exactly about post-installation configuration. Added *1* configuration line or, better yet, environmental variable to your system for the proxy is not exactly "a heavy burden." You do it for all sorts of other things. And the environmental variable is considered "proper" when you _do_ have a proxy server. > this thread and my responses are totally about yum. YOu > are the one going off-topic This started being _off-topic_ nature when someone quickly pointed out that CentOS *CAN*DO*NOTHING* about your issue. That has been a _repeat_theme_ here, and it _never_ seems to end either. I can be silent, and just let it go (which I did when this thread started), and it will go on. And then the next topic will come up, and yet again, something CentOS can do _nothing_ about will get bitched about too (regardless whether I respond or not). It's not only an upstream provider addressed issue, but it's a greater issue of handing site-specific settings _period_. Transparent proxies are _not_ the workaround. ;-> So the "new point" which _you'all_ introduced when you were not fit to accept CentOS' situation, is why transparent proxies are an issue, and how much of a so-called "big deal" it is to work around them. Com'mon, it's 1 environmental variable! And it's considered "good practice," whereas transparent proxies are _not_ (hence the "against the law comment" by one other ;-). Someone else even suggested using another distro. I guess I can only assume he meant to type "tongue-in-cheek" next to it, or he's just making threats that really have no meaning, since CentOS cannot and will not resolve the issue. It's upstream. > AGain you are going outside the scope of this thread and of > my comments What I'm trying to figure out is how many things that require configuration changes are going to be continually talked about on this list when CentOS can do _nothing_ about them. And it is _continually_ from the _same_ people too. Now I stood back and watched the first, few posts on this. And yet, the non-sense starts again! So I responded, trying to point out the technical specifics in all my verbosity (instead of the "transparent proxies should be against the law" or some other one-liner). And yet again, they are _ignored_ like I'm pulling them out of my rectum. Stop! > And you wonder why folks killfile you. Honestly, you're basically wanting the world to work your way, and you won't accept anything else. So then you bitch about it on this list, a project that can do _nothing_ to address it. So what do you hope to accomplish? I'm sorry I take the time to point out the technical specifics of your delima in the hope that you will understand and compensate. But apparently you want to rant about how it doesn't do what you want it to do, in full absence of the reality that it will _not_ change on this list. > wrong..my argument as you cll it was perfectly on target > with my previous comments You have 2 systems. When you setup those 2 systems, you make all sorts of configuration changes to each. This is just 1 additional change. Export the variable in /etc/rc.d/rc.local and be done with it. Or, better yet, write a proper init script -- especially for portables where network configurations may be dynamic. In the case of the latter, again, Fedora is working on addressing that at the GUI, and you'll see it in RHEL 5. NetworkManager offers a lot of capabilities that will remove much of the dynamic configuration issues that plague many things beyond just YUM. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)