Quoting Jeff Sheltren <sheltren@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Eric, in the case of our repo included with Fedora Core - this isn't > happening with a package upgrade without the user's knowledge. It > will be a separate 'fedora-legacy' package they need to install (I'm I thought it was just a change to the yum package or something. If it is a separate package, then I'm cool with it being enabled by default. In that case, I would have to install the package, so it wouldn't matter what the default it. (But, having said that, see below (end of message) for a counter argument.) If the change was an update to an existing package (update to yum, up2date, etc) then I would want it to be disabled by default. I admit I've not followed the argument blow-by-blow and I'm not sure exactly how it would be implemented. > not sure if it will get installed by default on FC5, but I think that > would be nice). I'm not too worried about that, as I always select packages to install manually. > This is similar to how Fedora Extras has its repo > enabled by default on all FC4 machines. It's just something that > admins need to be aware of, if they don't like it, they can disable/ > remove the repo. > > -Jeff Well, the Red Hat line since RHL 8 is "install all services disabled" rather than the line before that which was "install all services enabled" and doing so cut down almost completely on the number of worms being spread around the net for RHL machines. (Remember the worm outbreak with RHL 6 and 7 machines because all the services where enabled at installation?) I think that this is the correct philosophy, and I think it should extend to things like repositories. Just as if I install sendmail or apache they are disabled by default, I'd expect my repository to be disabled by default when I install it. Doing so would mean more consistency of installation behaviour IMHO. Your opinion may differ, and I respect that. -- Eric Rostetter -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
