Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date

["William L. Maltby" <CentOS4Bill@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 12:10 -0400, Jim Perrin wrote:
> ><snip>

> I believe that we provide a general service, and that to some extent,
> it's up to individual users to tweak to suit their unique needs. I
> don't think CentOS should get involved with "last mile" efforts, as
> most other distros do not, (or do so only by accident as with debian
> picking a mirror close to you).

Of course this argument has validity only if the avowed goal of being as
much like a certain major North American vendor ... "warts and all"
holds. Since the move to yum is itself a move away in search of
"excellence" (if I may be permitted), and the mirror system is also in
support of that, it seems that there is "wiggle room". Without a
exhibition of a slavish devotion towards "cloning" the major vendor, it
is reasonable to consider improvements of various kinds from various
quarters.

E.g. can a mirror definition be provided that supports "local addenda"
that take precedence? This might be through a config file parameter. It
could even allow one to suppress or continue processin of the "standard
mirrors" if the locals fail.

> <snip>

--
Bill

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos