On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Dennis Kibbe <dennisk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "The upstream maintainer of yum, Seth Vidal, had the following to say
> about 'yum priorities' in September 2009:
>
> Gosh, I hope people do not set up yum priorities. There are so many things
> about priorities that make me cringe all over. It could just be that it
> reminds me of apt 'pinning' and that makes me want to hurl."
>
> This note was placed on the wiki (PackageManagement/Yum?Priorities)
> without any explanation why yum-priorities isn't a good idea.
>
> yum-priorities doesn't appear in RHEL 5.4 but protectbase does. Is that
> the better choice and if so why?
yum-priorities is now available for CentOS 5.4 in the extras repository. See:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3923
My understanding is that, between yum-priorities and protectbase,
yum-priorities has been recommended over protectbase by CentOS devs.
As to why the priorities plugin is given the negative comment, I
cannot answer (don't know well enough). In my humble opinion, the
wiki article should provide ample explanation. Failing that, it should
at least offer alternative methods (for example, use of exclude= etc
?). If not, it would be basically saying, "do not use 3rd party
repositories". People come to this page because they need/want/have
to resort to 3rd party repos. When asked in the CentOS forums, I refer
them to the Repositories article and I continue to advise them to use
the priorities plugin.
Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
