On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 11:28 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 12/29/05, Brian Long <brilong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I would think it would be in the best interest of the Fedora team to
> > install protectbase by default, enable it and protect Fedora repos. If
> > power users want to disable it, it's very easy.
> >
> > Am I off-base in this request? :)
>
> Have you spoken with the atrpms and freshrpms maintainers? Do you have
> their agreement that turning this on is in the best interest of their
> users?
Nope. I don't know that it's up to me or the Fedora project to contact
each third-party repo maintainer when Fedora implements a change. I'm
asking Fedora to consider a change. If Fedora decides to implement that
change for the "protection" of their users and repos, the third party
repos would shoot themselves in the foot if they started scripting
around the protection! IMHO, they would lose credibility.
I believe there are 2 types of 3rd party repo users:
1) Fedora user who needs 3rd party repos for certain apps but never
wants that repo to override base Fedora RPMs
2) Fedora user who wants 3rd party repos for everything and wants them
to override base Fedora RPMs
#1 is fairly safe, #2 is flying by the seat of your pants. I'm
suggesting we configure the protectbase yum plugin such that #1 is
default. If a user wants to be #2, they need to comment out the
"protect=1" line in the fedora*.repo files. AtRPMs and other third
party repos should not automate the removal of protect=1; they would
need to inform users what to do to switch from scenario #1 and #2.
Maybe this would complicate matters too much, but I'd like to see Fedora
be configured as #1 out-of-the-box.
/Brian/
--
Brian Long | | |
IT Data Center Systems | .|||. .|||.
Cisco Linux Developer | ..:|||||||:...:|||||||:..
Phone: (919) 392-7363 | C i s c o S y s t e m s
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
