Thank you for your comments, Jim.
Without stepping on too many toes or getting all into the politics of
the matter, EPEL has good packages, but they are unconcerned about
playing nice with other repositories. The general sentiment seems to
be that packagers who want their stuff distributed should simply use
EPEL for distribution.
Does this make the best "protect strategy" epel before rpmforge (i.e.
yum should check in epel and if it is not in there, check rpmforge)?
RPMForge and centos play very nicely together and the developers of
both projects are in frequent contact.
Is RedHat in this loop? Perhaps epel is Rehat's attempt to force a
bigger division between it and CentOS?
Testing is just that. Don't use it if you're worried about possible breakage.
ATrpms has some hard-to-find packages, but can replace system packages
which can potentially cause issues.
Thanks, does it make sense to include these, but with a low priority
protection and, if so, which should be the lowest scoundrel ;)?
Basically, while it's cumbersome, using the protectbase or priorites
plugins is good, and if you're concerned about a repository, you might
want to limit the repositories in the .repo file to only include
certain packages.
The problem I found with includepkgs is that "yum --enablerepo=* search
whatever" does not find that whatever is easily installed by adding it
to the includepkgs line.
In that regard, which is better, protectbase or priorities?
--
Sincerely,
John Thomas
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
