On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 23:33 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:19:01PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> ><snip>
> > I don't have atrpm on my system. You might check there and see if they
> > have later packages. Just be aware that many months ago that repo was
> > less trusted (IIRC, considered unstable and overlaid base packages if
> > you weren't careful), but that may not be the case now. Plus, since
> > then, yum priorities and protect have become available (can protect
> > against overlay of base packages).
>
> Hearsay, your honour!
That's all that's available on any list for 80% of everything! :-)
>
> Well, there's some FUD floating around about ATrpms - I'm of course
> biased in the other direction. Suffice it to say that you will not
> find any report of unstable packages in the "stable" repo, and that
> since RHEL5/CentOS5's birth there were no "stable" packages replacing
> CentOS packages but one that accidentally was in the "stable" and was
> fixed minutes within the report (I forgot which package it was, just
> check these archives, it was O(1-2 months) ago).
>
> There is also nothing that has happened in the last months to
> increase/decrease ATrpms' trustworthiness. Maybe less FUD and
> gossiping. ;)
True, to my knowledge as to the last few (well, time flies, it may be
more than "few", might be "many" or even "mucho") months. That's why I
made sure to include "many months ago" when I mentioned it. I've not
heard any of those... "gossips" for some time now. That's what led me to
believe that the "gossip" I'd heard might no longer be true, if it ever
was. However, w/o mentioning names, I can certainly (long ago)
recall ... "advisories" WRT atrpms in certain threads for a CentOS
system. Not being truly knowledgeable myself, I felt it my civic duty to
*not* doubt the rumors, innuendo and falsehoods of which I was unaware!
8-O
And, of course, that same social obligation requires unquestioning
propagation of the mis-information. This works well because one who
truly knows will be outraged and therefore goaded into correcting the
misinformed fool who passes on such drivel. :-{
<*softly whistling and looking around in innocence*>
>
> Finally yum priorities and protect have been long enough available to
> show that they create more bugs than they solve. If you don't trust a
> repo, just don't use it. Selective/partial enabling creates per user
> bugs that no one can diagnose.
Small disagreement. A knowledgeable user who caused the bug (presumed
through oversight rather than ignorance) can often correct it.
Especially if he queries the list so that others can "read what he
wrote, not what he meant/thought he wrote". Of course, even if ignorance
about one particular facet was involved,
(community) knowledge + good problem resolution process = solution
often.
But that's really only an argument contrary to those of obsessive
anal-retentive BOFH types desiring absolute control - we know there are
none here! >:))
>
> But to get back to the actual issue: No, ATrpms has neither cdrdao,
> nor cdrecord, nor xcdroast.
Well, maybe the OP will get lucky. <snicker - no age comments PLEASE!>
OH! Almost forgot. No offense intended in my previous or current reply.
> <snip sig stuff>
--
Bill
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
