drew einhorn wrote: > > > On 7/26/07, *Dave K* <davek08054@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:davek08054@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On 7/26/07, Akemi Yagi <amyagi@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:amyagi@xxxxxxxxx>> > wrote: > > > If you ever set up your own local repo, that should be given the > > highest priority. In that case, you'd better start with a 2 for base > > etc. > > I'm just starting to "play with" priorities, but I actually made mine > all multiples of 10 on the first setup to make tuning easier. > > > Great minds think alike. I just sent a message suggesting the same thing. > > Also, I think I've found that if you really want to use the "plus" > repo it needs to be the same priority as "base" and "updates". > > > That could be a problem. Thanks. Well ... actually, having plus lower is a good thing. BUT, it requires you to exclude the packages that exist in Base/Updates if you use the Plus repo. This is "A GOOD THING" though. You can install anything in plus that is not a duplicate package in base/updates without a problem ... but you can't accidentally install a package that is also in base/updates without specifically excluding it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
