[CentOS] Re: Yum breaks after updating to CentOS 4.6

Mon Dec 31 13:03:04 UTC 2007
Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net>

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 06:44:08AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion ... mine is that the yum from
> CentOS is a critical package and should not be replaced with out a very,
> very good reason.  Yours is different.  Neither is right or wrong ...
> they are just different approaches.

Sure, and ATrpms' policy wrt to RHEL is to move replacing packages
into the testing repo until a better solution is found. Only that yum
is not part of RHEL4 end even worse, different clones of RHEL use
different yum versions and different sets of (sometimes home-made)
plugins. E.g. when talking about "replacing base packages" in RHEL &
clone worlds it becomes quite obfuscated.

The yum in ATrpms is there for two reasons:

o making sure RHEL users also have a yum, but more important
o several yum bugs that are triggered by some ATrpms packages have
  been fixed in later yum version w/o a backport. ATM some plugins and
  repo policies had unconvered yet another pile of yum bugs that were
  fixed with 3.2.8 and affected many ATrpms packages (the infamous:
  "Your installed kernel is not installed" installonly bug).

So wrt to yum and a couple similar infratsructure packages it would be
nice to have a canonical clone (e.g. from my POV a merged CentOS/SL
universe, something I've been advocating) to define as base and then
either invest in backporting bugfixes (which is difficult given that
yum is at a fast pace and the authors almost never do backports), or
update yum more often to remove these bugs (which involves testing yum
on CentOS3-5).

But this gets off the centos-user list charter a bit, I do hope that
working together on the merged 3rd party repo will have side-effects
like bringing CentOS/SL even closer and at the end not even have to
worry about 3rd party repos. Maybe we should move part of this
discussions to other lists. As a short term fix we could discuss on
centos/sl-devel whether a new common yum infrastructure could be
shared by centos/sl and atrpms (and maybe other 3rd party repos, I
think maybe Dag or Dries may have yum shipping, too) removing its own?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20071231/60370264/attachment-0005.sig>