FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-14-2012, 03:46 PM
Alan Bartlett
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On 13 September 2012 16:32, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> hi guys,
>
> One bit of feedback at LinuxCon this year from people was that we should
> ship epel with a lower barrier to entry. And I have mixed feelings about
> that. But I wanted to know what everyone else thinks about :
>
> 1) Shipping epel-release in CentOS-Extras, so its installable, usable
> out of the box.
>
> 2) Shipping epel-release in the distro itself, with the epel repos's
> enabled=false. This is the option that most people seem to want, but I
> am least keen on.
>
> 3) do nothing, leave things as they are.

Apologies for my delayed response. (I'm still in "catch-up" mode.)

If EPEL were to tag their RPM packages such that the package ownership
is perfectly clear I would vote for (1). Unfortunately EPEL declines
to tag their packages, so my vote is thus (3).

Alan.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 03:49 PM
Jeff Sheltren
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Alan Bartlett <ajb@elrepo.org> wrote:
> If EPEL were to tag their RPM packages such that the package ownership
> is perfectly clear I would vote for (1). Unfortunately EPEL declines
> to tag their packages, so my vote is thus (3).


I think this has nothing to do with the matter of hand of: "Lots of
people use EPEL (and other 3rd party repos). What can we do to make
enabling those repos easier for our users?".

Please let's not go off on this tangent.

-Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 04:05 PM
Alan Bartlett
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On 14 September 2012 16:49, Jeff Sheltren <jeff@tag1consulting.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Alan Bartlett <ajb@elrepo.org> wrote:
>> If EPEL were to tag their RPM packages such that the package ownership
>> is perfectly clear I would vote for (1). Unfortunately EPEL declines
>> to tag their packages, so my vote is thus (3).
>
>
> I think this has nothing to do with the matter of hand of: "Lots of
> people use EPEL (and other 3rd party repos). What can we do to make
> enabling those repos easier for our users?".
>
> Please let's not go off on this tangent.

Not a tangent, Jeff, just an explanation of why my choice is what it is.

Alan.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 04:18 PM
Jeff Sheltren
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Alan Bartlett <ajb@elrepo.org> wrote:
> Not a tangent, Jeff, just an explanation of why my choice is what it is.

Then would you be supportive of either inclusion option for other
repos that aren't EPEL? You just think that repo tags on package
names are a consideration to be taken before a certain repo is
approved to be included? Or where are you going with this...?

-Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 04:35 PM
Alan Bartlett
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On 14 September 2012 17:18, Jeff Sheltren <jeff@tag1consulting.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Alan Bartlett <ajb@elrepo.org> wrote:
>> Not a tangent, Jeff, just an explanation of why my choice is what it is.
>
> Then would you be supportive of either inclusion option for other
> repos that aren't EPEL? You just think that repo tags on package
> names are a consideration to be taken before a certain repo is
> approved to be included? Or where are you going with this...?

Provoke me all you like, I will not take the bait.

Please note that:

(1) I replied to KB's initial message and nothing more.
(2) It is unclear, to me, whom you were quoting with --

> "Lots of
> people use EPEL (and other 3rd party repos). What can we do to make
> enabling those repos easier for our users?".

-- certainly not KB or Johnny Hughes. Thus your inclusion of that
quote (if it actually is a quote from somewhere above and not
something you just decided to type) is actually tangential.

Alan.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 04:40 PM
Jeff Sheltren
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Alan Bartlett <ajb@elrepo.org> wrote:
> Provoke me all you like, I will not take the bait.
>

Alan, I'm not trying to provoke you at all; I'm sorry if it came
across that way. I'm trying to move this conversation along so that
we can figure out the next action -- even if that next action turns
out to be "do nothing".

> Please note that:
>
> (1) I replied to KB's initial message and nothing more.
> (2) It is unclear, to me, whom you were quoting with --
>
>> "Lots of
>> people use EPEL (and other 3rd party repos). What can we do to make
>> enabling those repos easier for our users?".

That was me paraphrasing KB's initial post. All words are my own.
That's the discussion I thought we were having here, am I mistaken?

My question to you about allowing other repos was intended to see if
your negative response around EPEL was simply a judgement on EPEL, or
if you are saying it's not CentOS' place to include any repo
files/packages for 3rd party repos.

-Jeff
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 05:01 PM
Alan Bartlett
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On 14 September 2012 17:40, Jeff Sheltren <jeff@tag1consulting.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Alan Bartlett <ajb@elrepo.org> wrote:
>> Provoke me all you like, I will not take the bait.
>>
>
> Alan, I'm not trying to provoke you at all; I'm sorry if it came
> across that way.

Apology accepted.

> I'm trying to move this conversation along so that
> we can figure out the next action -- even if that next action turns
> out to be "do nothing".

Please take a moment to look at your posting to this list of 1549
hours UTC that appears, to me, to be a direct reply to my response to
KB's initial post. You were concerned about tangents (when there was
none), yet now you appear to want to take discussion off on one about
my opinions regarding other repositories.

The discussion, here, is about EPEL. Because they do not tag their
packages and -- thank you Russ for providing some examples -- as EPEL
will overwrite certain distribution packages, my choice out of the
three options KB initially suggested is (3).

Discussions concerning other repositories (and my opinions thereof)
are for another time and another thread/conversation.

Alan.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 05:58 PM
Marko Bevc
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

My vote is for 1 , maybe even 2 It is truly usable and it is the first
thing on new installs

Regards,
Marko
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Karanbir Singh wrote:

> hi guys,
>
> One bit of feedback at LinuxCon this year from people was that we should
> ship epel with a lower barrier to entry. And I have mixed feelings about
> that. But I wanted to know what everyone else thinks about :
>
> 1) Shipping epel-release in CentOS-Extras, so its installable, usable
> out of the box.
>
> 2) Shipping epel-release in the distro itself, with the epel repos's
> enabled=false. This is the option that most people seem to want, but I
> am least keen on.
>
> 3) do nothing, leave things as they are.
>
> Ofcourse, if we do either (1) or (2) we would need to set some sort of a
> baseline standard that allows other repo's to be included as well ( as +
> if they meet the baseline standard )
>
> regards,
>
>

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 06:08 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On 09/14/2012 10:49 AM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Alan Bartlett <ajb@elrepo.org> wrote:
>> If EPEL were to tag their RPM packages such that the package ownership
>> is perfectly clear I would vote for (1). Unfortunately EPEL declines
>> to tag their packages, so my vote is thus (3).
>
>
> I think this has nothing to do with the matter of hand of: "Lots of
> people use EPEL (and other 3rd party repos). What can we do to make
> enabling those repos easier for our users?".
>
> Please let's not go off on this tangent.
>
> -Jeff

I am trying to understand how this:

yum install epel-repo

(and installing an rpm maintained by CentOS that is disabled by default,
and requires editing after install)

is any easier for users than this:

yum install
http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/fedora-epel/6/i386/epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm

(and getting an enabled repo file with no editing requried)

The repo is still installed in one step, and no editing is required.

I find it hard to understand how us including repo rpms, which have the
potential to become outdated and require editing after install are
somehow easier than installing from originator. We are also going to
install the user's pki files (which are in most repo "release" files), etc.

I am fine to put the rpms in the extras repo if people really think this
is a benefit, and maybe I am not seeing something, but to me this does
not seem to help much.

What am I missing?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 09-14-2012, 06:42 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default Shipping an EPEL release

On Friday, September 14, 2012 02:08:40 PM Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I am trying to understand how this:
>
> yum install epel-repo

> is any easier for users than this:

> yum install
> http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/fedora-epel/6/i386/epel-release-6-7.noarch.rpm

Assuming osuosl's mirror is up... but anyway, 'yum --enablerepo=extras install epel-release' (with the repo in epel-release enabled, that is, a direct mirror of what is in EPEL itself) is a whole lot easier to type correctly and a whole lot easier for someone, who is likely to be unfamiliar with Fedora's website and mirroring system and difficulty in finding anything but the current Fedora Desktop LiveCD, to find and to understand.

Also, if epel-release were to be shipped in both C5 and C6's Extras for all supported arches, then the EPEL install instructions are the same and consistent among all CentOS releases, no 'find the right EPEL release and arch' required.

If I want to go to the EPEL repo, it is actually easier to find from the CentOS Wiki than from the Fedora Project website's home page.

But, Alan has a good point about the complete lack of a distro tag, and Russ is completely correct about EPEL shipping packages that do supercede upstream packages without an easy to see differentiator in the package name. But both of those points are valid whether CentOS ships epel-release (as is, rsync'd straight from EPEL) from Extras or not. Shipping epel-release just makes it easier for users to get to EPEL.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:16 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org