William Warren wrote:
> replies inline
No need to declare it, being an "old guy" in Internet terms,
I actually prefer bottom posting (but don't mind either way).
> straw man. this topic isabout yum..not the rest of the
> system. I said i don't want to have to change yum t all or
> mess with configuring its config files.
It's exactly about post-installation configuration. Added
*1* configuration line or, better yet, environmental variable
to your system for the proxy is not exactly "a heavy burden."
You do it for all sorts of other things. And the
environmental variable is considered "proper" when you _do_
have a proxy server.
> this thread and my responses are totally about yum. YOu
> are the one going off-topic
This started being _off-topic_ nature when someone quickly
pointed out that CentOS *CAN*DO*NOTHING* about your issue.
That has been a _repeat_theme_ here, and it _never_ seems to
end either. I can be silent, and just let it go (which I did
when this thread started), and it will go on. And then the
next topic will come up, and yet again, something CentOS can
do _nothing_ about will get bitched about too (regardless
whether I respond or not).
It's not only an upstream provider addressed issue, but it's
a greater issue of handing site-specific settings _period_.
Transparent proxies are _not_ the workaround. ;->
So the "new point" which _you'all_ introduced when you were
not fit to accept CentOS' situation, is why transparent
proxies are an issue, and how much of a so-called "big deal"
it is to work around them. Com'mon, it's 1 environmental
variable! And it's considered "good practice," whereas
transparent proxies are _not_ (hence the "against the law
comment" by one other ;-).
Someone else even suggested using another distro. I guess I
can only assume he meant to type "tongue-in-cheek" next to
it, or he's just making threats that really have no meaning,
since CentOS cannot and will not resolve the issue. It's
upstream.
> AGain you are going outside the scope of this thread and of
> my comments
What I'm trying to figure out is how many things that require
configuration changes are going to be continually talked
about on this list when CentOS can do _nothing_ about them.
And it is _continually_ from the _same_ people too.
Now I stood back and watched the first, few posts on this.
And yet, the non-sense starts again! So I responded, trying
to point out the technical specifics in all my verbosity
(instead of the "transparent proxies should be against the
law" or some other one-liner). And yet again, they are
_ignored_ like I'm pulling them out of my rectum.
Stop!
> And you wonder why folks killfile you.
Honestly, you're basically wanting the world to work your
way, and you won't accept anything else. So then you bitch
about it on this list, a project that can do _nothing_ to
address it. So what do you hope to accomplish?
I'm sorry I take the time to point out the technical
specifics of your delima in the hope that you will understand
and compensate. But apparently you want to rant about how it
doesn't do what you want it to do, in full absence of the
reality that it will _not_ change on this list.
> wrong..my argument as you cll it was perfectly on target
> with my previous comments
You have 2 systems. When you setup those 2 systems, you make
all sorts of configuration changes to each. This is just 1
additional change.
Export the variable in /etc/rc.d/rc.local and be done with
it. Or, better yet, write a proper init script -- especially
for portables where network configurations may be dynamic.
In the case of the latter, again, Fedora is working on
addressing that at the GUI, and you'll see it in RHEL 5.
NetworkManager offers a lot of capabilities that will remove
much of the dynamic configuration issues that plague many
things beyond just YUM.
--
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
