Re: Why is yum not liked by some? -- CVS analogy (and why you're not getting it)

[whooperhsd3 at earthlink.net (William Hooper)]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 10:44, William Hooper wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The only reason there is even a possible savings is that yum
>>> circumvents standard http/ftp caching practices by randomizing the
>>> source locations.
>>
>> We've been through this before.  Yum only changes servers if you use
>> the mirror list option.  By default CentOS (at least 4) doesn't, so what
>> is the problem?
>
> Most of my machines are running 3.5.

I just verified CentOS 3.5 is configured the same as 4.

>>> Even then, you'd have to update a vast number of server-type machines
>>> to make up for the fact that rsync'ing the repository is going to pull
>>> copies of updates for a gazillion programs that no machine has
>>> installed.
>>
>> So don't rsync it.  Pull the RPMs from your test machine's yum cache
>> and make your own repo.
>
> That's actually the most sensible suggestion so far.

I've said it three or four times now.

>  Is there a generic
> automation for this?

Copy the files to an FTP/HTTP server and run yum-arch on them (since you
are using CentOS 3.5).

>  Yum over ssh or something that doesn't take
> additional setup/infrastructure for every variation of Linux distributions
> or architecture I might like to use?

All can be served from a single FTP/HTTP server, just like the CentOS
repos are now.

-- 
William Hooper