On 21/04/06, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/21/06, Garry Harthill <gazzerh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is good idea. > > Its a horrible idea., because it makes it that much easier for random > inexperienced users to create mind-numbingly simple ways to create > scripts that breaks other inexperienced users systems. For ever one > of these scripts which will be provided by a reputable maintainer > there will be a vast array of such scripts sitting in > random-joe-user's personal blog or "help site" which hasn't seen a > shred of testing by anyone else and willy-nilly enabled a array of > repositories with conflicting update paths causing updating problems > for any user who happens to find that random script on the web. > > What happens when stanton writes his yumex installer script which > makes slightly different but conflicting choices than the dries > script? What happens with atrpms adds yet another script which again > makes slightly different but conflicting choices? And the poor user > attempts to use all 3 because they each cover unique functionality? > > -jef"Can wait to add pathelogical yumex install scripts to his > repository webpage of pathelogical packages of doom repository"spaleta > I can see that it could be a problem for a lot of harmful scripts to be introduced. However, it is *very* easy for users to install an RPM for a destructive repo with enable=1 without them really knowing what damage they do when they yum install or update. If the "default" yumex repo wizard choices are carefully chosen then where is the problem? In fact because they are carefully chosen this could reduce destroyed systems due to yum repo misuse. Garry -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
