On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 12:31 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Daniel de Kok wrote on Sun, 7 May 2006 00:14:37 +0200 (CEST):
>
> > > No protect line means protect=1 !
> >
> > Are you sure about that?
>
> That is how it is explained in the documentation
> http://www.centos.org/docs/4/html/yum/sn-yum-maintenance.html#sn-yum-plugins
> Adding protect= to all repositories
> You MUST add protect=0 to all repos in all .repo files in /etc/yum.repos.d/
> or any repos that you have in /etc/yum.conf if you want them unprotected,
> otherwise they belong to the protect=1 group. As a general rule add either
> protect=0 or protect=1 to each and every repo.
I have noticed inconsistencies in real updates if protect=0 is not added
to repos ... which is why that note is there :)
When protect=0 is added the plugin works consistently.
>
> > So, if the 'protect' option is not set, it the default value is false.
> > This this also confirms how protectbase works in real-life on my machines.
>
> Well, I'm certainly okay with that behavior, it's safer :-)
As I said in the note in the "Official Documentation" , please add
protect=0 ... or at least, don't say you have not been warned :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060507/87c88b1b/attachment.bin
