On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Peter wrote:
On 03/29/2015 09:32 AM, Carl George wrote:

If this looks familiar, it's because I used the IUS SafeRepo
Initiative as a starting point. Please share your feedback and
ideas. Sure:
Must not have the same name as a stock distribution package.
Must not automatically install, upgrade, or replace stock
distribution packages when the repository is enabled.
How do the above two rules affect a repository that is not enabled by
default but would end up replacing stock packages if it is enabled by
the user? As an example, this would happen with CentOS's own centosplus
repository which is included in the centos-release package.

And Percona, and the mysql community repository, and RPMforge.
RPMforge, I'm afraid, has become particularly perilous as it's become
less maintained and components are now out of date (such as the
Subversion packages I used to publish there.)

Don't get me going on JPackage, which seems to be quite idle now.

What about a 3rd-party group that distributes a .repo file with one repo
that is enabled by default which is intended (by policy) to not replace
stock packages, and another that comes disabled with explicit

Works for me!

instructions on how to enable it and use it (more or less) safely, the
latter being intended to replace stock packages?

Especially if the packages can be roughly segregated: the maven suite,
for instance, is quite large and interwoven with other Java based
utilities and needs to be managed cautiously, or jpackage, which
hasn't been noticeably udpated since.... Fedora 17.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 5 of 18 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupcentos-devel @
postedMar 28, '15 at 8:32p
activeApr 10, '15 at 1:35p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase