On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 12:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > Daniel de Kok wrote on Sun, 7 May 2006 00:14:37 +0200 (CEST): > > > > No protect line means protect=1 ! > > > > Are you sure about that? > > That is how it is explained in the documentation > http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/yum/sn-yum-maintenance.html#sn-yum-plugins > Adding protect= to all repositories > You MUST add protect=0 to all repos in all .repo files in /etc/yum.repos.d/ > or any repos that you have in /etc/yum.conf if you want them unprotected, > otherwise they belong to the protect=1 group. As a general rule add either > protect=0 or protect=1 to each and every repo. I have noticed inconsistencies in real updates if protect=0 is not added to repos ... which is why that note is there :) When protect=0 is added the plugin works consistently. > > > So, if the 'protect' option is not set, it the default value is false. > > This this also confirms how protectbase works in real-life on my machines. > > Well, I'm certainly okay with that behavior, it's safer :-) As I said in the note in the "Official Documentation" , please add protect=0 ... or at least, don't say you have not been warned :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060507/87c88b1b/attachment-0005.sig>