On 5/10/05, Lamar Owen <lowen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 May 2005 15:45, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 13:14 -0600, Greg Knaddison wrote:
> > > On 5/10/05, Lamar Owen <lowen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > My complaint isn't as much with the repository as it's with yum itself
> > > > for blowing chunks and completely failing.
>
> > The problem isn't yum ... it is the 304 status code from apache
>
> Well, one can argue semantics, but it takes two to tango. While apache
> shouldn't be sending that code, perhaps, yum is still responding to the code
> in an inappropriate manner (if the file hasn't changed, use the local copy,
> this being repomd.xml we're talking about).
So, to stay in your metaphor, if I go out on the dance floor and my
partner steps on my foot because she can't tango, does that make it a
flaw in my dance technique? No.
>
> > > In fact, there is a discussion on this topic already:
> > > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum-devel/2005-May/thread.html#114
>
> Already on too many mailing lists. Not another. I just finally got rid of my
> last Fedora Core box and have unsubscribed from the Fedora-list (and -test
> and -devel) quagmire. Cut my mailing volume significantly.
If you want to tilt at the windmills by all means, but if you want a
meaningful response the place to get it is a yum mailing list.
>
> I've looked closely at the whole strawman of 'if one repo doesn't work, then
> you might get software installed from a repo where you don't expect it to
> come from' and found it full of holes.
<snip lots of info>
You disagree with the maintainer. You seem to have strong opinions on
this. Seems like it is time for you to find a new tool for the job
or, if you really feel strong in your convictions to fork.
Greg
