[CentOS] Why is yum not liked by some?

Mike McCarty mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net
Wed Sep 14 15:03:31 UTC 2005

Johnny Hughes wrote:


> Using the date added to the mirror is not good.  A copy with the wrong
> switches ... signing with a different key, etc. changes that (when the
> package is actually the same).  Not to mention that we maintain several
> repos that get rebuilt at different times.


> It is a major change ... the entire repo is looked at as a whole at
> rebuild time for the metadata, not as 10,000 packages but as one entity.
> Because of this fact (as Bryan has pointed out), you would need to keep
> older entire repo snapshots of the metadata to use to resolve your
> dependencies separately.
> The more I look at this problem, the more I see that a local repo
> maintained by the local user is the right answer.  It works right now,
> requires no changes, and let's you control EXACTLY what you want in your
> repo (including files from other places in a single repo).


Everyone who has actually done any real configuration management has
said this exact thing several times in this thread, and it seems to
do absolutely no good.

> You can freeze package xxxxx and it dependencies as you see fit, and add
> only tested packages to the repo.  It is just the right way to do
> version control if you don't want to just use the version control that
> is published by the repo maintainer.

This has been repeated until people are blue in the face, and it
doesn't make a dent.

This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!

More information about the CentOS mailing list