Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   CentOS Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos-development/)
-   -   Shipping an EPEL release (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos-development/703522-shipping-epel-release.html)

Karanbir Singh 09-13-2012 03:32 PM

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

Jeff Sheltren 09-13-2012 03:42 PM

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

Trevor Hemsley 09-13-2012 03:54 PM

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

"=?gb18030?b?pspppsZz73epZ5NQ?=" 09-13-2012 04:04 PM

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

Matthew Patton 09-13-2012 04:10 PM

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

David Hrbáč 09-13-2012 04:20 PM

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

"Marko A. Jennings" 09-13-2012 04:44 PM

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

Ned Slider 09-13-2012 04:48 PM

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

Alessandro Ren 09-13-2012 04:52 PM

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

"κiζs飛ゞ揚" 09-13-2012 05:03 PM

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 02:48 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.