Shipping an EPEL release
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, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:32 AM, 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 : > EPEL is the first thing I add to most servers I manage (CentOS or RHEL). I would like the added convenience of having it included by default -- either of the options you listed would be OK for me from that perspective. However, including it in the base OS doesn't make a lot of sense to me as we look for a way to scale it out to include other repos as well. Adding those to CentOS Extras seems like the way to go to make it a low barrier of entry to enable repos (I assume with some sort of qualification before we include them). I have to say though, I rarely use CentOS Extras, and I'd be more likely to stick with adding EPEL in a kickstart file. I understand that's not for everyone though. <snip from kickstart> repo --name=epel --baseurl=http://ftp.osuosl.org/pub/fedora-epel/5/x86_64/ [...] %packages @base epel-release [...] </snip> -Jeff _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
On 13/09/12 16:32, 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. This one looks best from POV of amount of work needed and also because it won't be enabled by default. I'd also suggest adding ELRepo... Perhaps a big note in the release notes saying it's there but not endorsed etc etc? Trevor _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
Who are you? publishers
------------------*Original*------------------From: *"Karanbir Singh"<mail-lists@karan.org>;Date: *Thu, Sep 13, 2012 11:32 PMTo: *"The CentOS developers mailing list."<centos-devel@centos.org>; Subject: *[CentOS-devel] Shipping an EPEL release 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, -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh ICQ: 2522219*** | Yahoo IM: z00dax***** | Gtalk: z00dax GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
I vote #3, do nothing. It's not like EPEL is hard to find or use. If they are wanting to use it at install time or on first boot, they can use tools like spacewalk or puppet, chef.
IMO a distribution shouldn't be in the business of coddling lazy or unknowledgeable users. _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
Dne 13.9.2012 17:32, Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
> 3) do nothing, leave things as they are. > My vote. DH _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
My vote is to leave things as they are.
Marko Jennings _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
On 13/09/12 16:54, Trevor Hemsley wrote:
> On 13/09/12 16:32, 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. > For information, Scientific Linux adds various 3rd party repo release files to their distro although AFAIK none are installed by default. See here: http://www.scientificlinux.org/distributions/6x/features/added yum repositories Summary : Various Yum Repositories These are not supported by Scientific Linux but are here for your convenience. This is not installed by default. -- adobe-release -- atrpms-repo -- elrepo-release -- epel-release -- rpmforge-release > > I'd also suggest adding ELRepo... > I should declare an interest in that I'm a member of elrepo. We have worked with SL where needed to ensure the elrepo-release package is kept up to date within their repositories and try to maintain consistent / stable behaviour and a minimal release schedule consistent with an Enterprise Linux distribution. I personally have no objections / concerns with CentOS including our repo release package should you so want, but I feel it inappropriate for me to offer further opinion on the matter given my vested interest in the subject :-) _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
On 9/13/2012 1:48 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> 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 : > > > yum repositories > Summary : Various Yum Repositories > These are not supported by Scientific Linux but are here for your > convenience. > > This is not installed by default. > -- adobe-release > -- atrpms-repo > -- elrepo-release > -- epel-release > -- rpmforge-release I woundt mind it this repos came installed but disabled buy default, I dont know, but it seems that everybody ends up installing some of them anyway. But, if they came disabled, the vanilla CentOS environment would not be affected without user intervention. CentOS would remain CentOS the same it is today. []s. _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
Shipping an EPEL release
You have been unsubscribed from the CentOS-devel mailing list*!!!
Why should that be?How do I send mail to everyone?------------------*Original*------------------From: *"David Hrbáč"<david-lists@hrbac.cz>;Date: *Fri, Sep 14, 2012 00:20 AMTo: *"centos-devel"<centos-devel@centos.org>; Subject: *Re: [CentOS-devel] Shipping an EPEL release Dne 13.9.2012 17:32, Karanbir Singh napsal(a): > 3) do nothing, leave things as they are. > My vote. DH _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:04 PM. |
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.