[CentOS] Why is yum not liked by some?
mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Wed Sep 14 19:33:47 UTC 2005
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 14:15 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 10:03, Mike McCarty wrote:
> > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > > 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.
> Yet I can look, for example, at:
> and have no trouble knowing exactly which files were there
> at any given date. Yum could be at least as smart...
That directory is for up2date (not yum), it would also work for yum
prior to 2.1.x (not what we use in CentOS-4.x) ... this directory is for
yum 2.1 and greater, which is what we use for CentOS-4.x:
> > > 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).
> > [snip]
> > 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.
> The Centos people are doing an excellent job of configuration
> management. If they say they are planning to start deleting
> and randomly modifying existing files in their repository instead
> of just adding newer ones, I'll give up on it being possible
> to tell what was previously present at the points the .hdr
> files were generated.
I am the CentOS people :)
We currently remove all the update information every time a new point
release is done ... for example, when 4.2 is released, the paths:
will be the same ... there will be no files in the updates tree. The
4.0 and 4.1 trees will look like this:
This is the way we have been doing the trees since Jan 2004.
> Otherwise, while I agree that yum currently
> uses some repo metadata to quickly ignore .hdr files other
> than the latest, an option to work with timestamps could let
> it construct a view of what was there earlier just as I could
> construct a copy of the whole repository as of a certain time
> simply by observing the timestamps of all .hdr files - something
> that is already viewable.
CentOS-4 Lead Developer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050914/73bf330d/attachment.bin
More information about the CentOS