On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/15/2015 01:09 AM, PatrickD Garvey wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On 01/09/2015 11:49 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: > > KB -- I made those changes several months ago (Sep/Oct I believe), with > discussion in IRC. This was after a spate of people in the main channel > having issues with Atomic (there's a name that's going to end up causing > problems...) and the continued use of RPMForge/RepoForge, with no > indication that they're really really bad. As well as the recognition of > the reality that there are a very few repos that are frequently > recommended (and, in the case of EPEL, now easily enabled in CentOS). > > I think we should do a bit of work and find a tangiable set of standards > that a repo needs to meet in order to be 'endorsed' or rated at a > certain level. Because at the moment it does seem to add value to a repo > or two over others, based on personal opinion. > > I am willing to write code to do this validation, but were going to need > a set of good rules to implement. > > regards and thanks > > - KB > > Maybe it isn't code that needs to be generated. > > I obviously wasn't around for any IRC discussion of this page and its > implications. > I don't imagine there is any sort of log of that discussion I could review. > > Rhetorical questions and comments: > Is it true some of these repos exist because CentOS wasn't adequate for some > particular purpose, but someone thought they could provide a parallel > resource > to easily install additional software? > > Yes, it is. Some people need newer versions for applications than what the > distro can provide. Other need complementary stuff which the distro or > better said RHEL is not willing or not able to provide. > > > [...] > > From Tom's comment I infer there was a need to warn people away from using > some > repos that were consuming significant resources to help folks who had > trusted them. > > Right. Some repos lead to problems similar to: > > Aug 28 14:27:15 <TheAlien> hey there, im having trouble updating > packages on my server. yum update gives a long list of needed updates and > sumarises 'Install 3 Package(s) > / Upgrade 132 Package(s) / Remove 1 Package(s)' but then says > 'package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.remi.x86_64 (which is newer than > mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386) is already installed' -- > Aug 28 14:27:24 <TheAlien> plus several messages like 'file > /usr/bin/mysqlaccess from install of mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386 conflicts > with file from package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.r > > Others simply are no longer properly maintained, for instance still shipping > older versions of applications which have known vulnerabilities. > > > [...] > > It also appears that somehow Fedora's efforts have been mutually beneficial. > > > Yes, they have but this has nothing to do with the wiki page we speak about. > Incidentally EPEL aims to a high standard so as to make it suitable for an > enterprise-grade distro which CentOS aims to be and that is why we recommend > to all others packagers to follow similar rules ( when possible and if they > make sense, of course ). However this is by no means a requirement that must > be met in order to have a 3rd party repository listed in the CentOS wiki. > > > With these thoughts as background for my thinking, my brainstorm is that the > Special Interest Groups and spins may be the path to solving the need to > have > additional non-CentOS resources and know they are sufficiently cooperative. > > Proposal: > The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories, > but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent > repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has > happened > in the past without naming names. > > I can only concur with what John has said. You are looking for problems to > fix where there are none. 3 months ago Tom has made a great job in cleaning > the page up ( and several of us assisted him when he asked for opinions ) > and - AFAIK - its current shape expresses the views of most of the regulars > who provide help via the various CentOS support channels. If and when needed > we modify the page but as it is now it is completely satisfactory for its > purpose. Even if the feelings of some people get hurt by our opinions about > the quality of their work ( i.e. of the packages they provide ). > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-docs mailing list > CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs > Thank you for the comments on my conjectures. I will integrate them with my previous data about how this project works. I guess I'm learning I should have let Karanbir Singh handle his own suggestion that if the article seemed to grade the various repos, someone needed to create an objective yardstick. I hope you'll remember I offered some up-to-date contents for the link anchors to those repositories. No one seems to have examined them for validity. I have never used yum or git. I have no way to evaluate the utility of the links that are now in the article. Should they be improved? _______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
