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

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-25-2010, 11:49 AM
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

Sorin Srbu wrote:
>> Sorin Srbu wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:44:40 +0100:
>>
>>> Doing the same search for RHEL5 gave me two packages (one for i386 and
>>> one for x86_64); v3.1.0-5.
>>
>> Not from Red Hat.
>
> No, from epel.

epel is just another third party repo.


>>> I thought all packages available from the prominent American upstream
> provider
>>> got a treatment from the CentOS crew?
>>
>> Red Hat doesn't provide BackupPC packages.
>
> So anything (more or less) that RH provides, we also get for CentOS while
> any extra fluff like BackupPC for CentOS, is 3rd party. Did I get that
> correct?

yes, centos (base+updates) offers exactly what's in RHEL.
Centos won't rebuild stuff that's in epel, rpmforge or any other third
party repo, these packages should work the same on rhel and centos
precisely because centos aims to be as close to rhel as possible.


Also note that 3.1.0 is the latest stable release of backuppc. This is
the version that you installed from c5-testing. It's also the same
version offered in epel. 3.1.0-5 from one repo is not necessarily better
than 3.1.0-1 from another: it's the same upstream code, the -5 is only
useful for comparing within a given repo.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-25-2010, 12:12 PM
"Sorin Srbu"
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

>-----Original Message-----
>From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On
Behalf
>Of Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
>Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:50 PM
>To: CentOS mailing list
>Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
>
>[...]
>
>3.1.0-5 from one repo is not necessarily better
>than 3.1.0-1 from another: it's the same upstream code, the -5 is only
>useful for comparing within a given repo.

I had no idea...!

Is this a general thing with most (all?) repos?

Thanks for the info!
--
/Sorin
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-25-2010, 12:31 PM
Kai Schaetzl
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

Sorin, I've seen you posting on this list for a long time. There is no
excuse that you don't know the simplest FAQs about CentOS.

Kai

--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-25-2010, 02:51 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

On 2/25/2010 3:44 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I installed BackupPC on one of my Centos 5.4-machines following the wiki at
> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BackupPC#head-725ed151d366bcf182cea92f765c373900cfc9dc,
> where BackupPC is installed from the c5-testing repo.
>
> root@mach012 ~/ [0]# rpm -qa backuppc
> backuppc-3.1.0-1.el5.centos
> root@mach012 ~/ [0]#
>
> Seeing how there's been some updates to BackupPC in the near past, I thought
> I'd run a yum update to get the updated package. That didn't work. So I
> searched pbone.net for a BackupPC package on CentOS5 but didn't find any.
> Doing the same search for RHEL5 gave me two packages (one for i386 and one for
> x86_64); v3.1.0-5.
> Looking more closely I saw that the RHEL5-packages were from epel, a repo one
> maybe shouldn't choose as a primary repo for ones CentOS-systems if you can
> help it. At least that's the impression I got from the various posts to this
> list.

No, epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts
with the base. They are just not perfect. It's probably impossible to
be perfect without a single point of coordination, but you generally
won't get in trouble leaving epel enabled during updates unless you also
use other 3rd party repos. They also tend not to have as current
packages as rpmforge, though.

> I thought all packages available from the prominent American upstream provider
> got a treatment from the CentOS crew? Am I wrong or am I missing something
> really basic, or some part of the CentOS philosophy here? Or isn't BackupPC a
> package worthy of being CentOSified? 8-)

There is (was?) a version in centos-testing, but now that epel has it,
there isn't much reason to have a duplicate.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-25-2010, 03:06 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

On 2/25/2010 7:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Sorin, I've seen you posting on this list for a long time. There is no
> excuse that you don't know the simplest FAQs about CentOS.

I'm not sure there is any reasonable way to understand the state of 3rd
party repositories. If there were, they'd probably fix their conflicts
and avoid them in the future...

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-25-2010, 06:31 PM
Kai Schaetzl
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:06:11 -0600:

> I'm not sure there is any reasonable way to understand the state of 3rd
> party repositories. If there were, they'd probably fix their conflicts
> and avoid them in the future...

This wasn't what I referred to. He seemed to be unaware about how Centos
"works".

Kai

--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-26-2010, 06:30 AM
"Sorin Srbu"
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

>-----Original Message-----
>From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On
Behalf
>Of Les Mikesell
>Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:52 PM
>To: centos@centos.org
>Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
>
[...]
>> Looking more closely I saw that the RHEL5-packages were from epel,
>a repo one
>> maybe shouldn't choose as a primary repo for ones CentOS-systems if you
can
>> help it. At least that's the impression I got from the various posts to
this
>> list.
>
>No, epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts
>with the base. They are just not perfect. It's probably impossible to
>be perfect without a single point of coordination, but you generally
>won't get in trouble leaving epel enabled during updates unless you also
>use other 3rd party repos. They also tend not to have as current
>packages as rpmforge, though.

Yeah, I noticed that with rpmforge. I was just under the impression that
epel was a bit "dodgy" as repos come. Never too late to be enlightened
though. ;-)

--
/Sorin
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-26-2010, 07:20 AM
John R Pierce
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

>> epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts
>> with the base.
>>
>
> Yeah, I noticed that with rpmforge. I was just under the impression that
> epel was a bit "dodgy" as repos come. Never too late to be enlightened
> though. ;-)
>

the following is my opinion, and nothing else:



epel doesn't use a repository tag in their RPM names. this makes it
hard to use with other repositories.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-26-2010, 03:52 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

On 2/26/2010 2:20 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
>
>>> epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts
>>> with the base.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I noticed that with rpmforge. I was just under the impression that
>> epel was a bit "dodgy" as repos come. Never too late to be enlightened
>> though. ;-)
>>
>
> the following is my opinion, and nothing else:
>
>
>
> epel doesn't use a repository tag in their RPM names. this makes it
> hard to use with other repositories.

All repositories are hard to use with other repositories. Yum doesn't
pay attention to repo tags, so all they do is help point out problems
after the fact. I think it was a dumb decision for epel to not use tags
but it is worse that yum doesn't track where it got things. For packages
you haven't installed yet, 'yum info packagename' will show the
repository location(s).

As an example of things that go wrong, on one machine I have subversion
and viewvc from rpmforge (to get a version that is not ancient), but
epel's build number for viewvc is higher and the rpmforge/epel versions
land in different places and are incompatible. So, with my usual
practice of leaving epel enabled during updates, I pick up epel's
newer-numbered package which overwrites some of the rpmforge version and
keeps some, leaving it very broken. But fortunately it's a standalone
package and not to hard to fix by removing the one you don't want and
re-installing with the right combination of enablerepo= and disablerepo=
on the yum command line. When this happens to things with a lot of
dependencies it is a real mess.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 03-01-2010, 07:11 AM
"Sorin Srbu"
 
Default Backuppc-updates on CentOS

>-----Original Message-----
>From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On
Behalf
>Of Les Mikesell
>Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:53 PM
>To: centos@centos.org
>Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
>
>All repositories are hard to use with other repositories. Yum doesn't
>pay attention to repo tags, so all they do is help point out problems
>after the fact. I think it was a dumb decision for epel to not use tags
>but it is worse that yum doesn't track where it got things. For packages
>you haven't installed yet, 'yum info packagename' will show the
>repository location(s).
>
>As an example of things that go wrong, on one machine I have subversion
>and viewvc from rpmforge (to get a version that is not ancient), but
>epel's build number for viewvc is higher and the rpmforge/epel versions
>land in different places and are incompatible. So, with my usual
>practice of leaving epel enabled during updates, I pick up epel's
>newer-numbered package which overwrites some of the rpmforge version and
>keeps some, leaving it very broken. But fortunately it's a standalone
>package and not to hard to fix by removing the one you don't want and
>re-installing with the right combination of enablerepo= and disablerepo=
>on the yum command line. When this happens to things with a lot of
>dependencies it is a real mess.

I think I get the general gist of it. Thanks all who put me on the right
path!
--
/Sorin

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:13 AM.

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