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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-21-2010, 12:22 AM
Björn Persson
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo?

Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Ok, so maybe it's time to setup Fedora "backports" repo for these that
> wants new and shiny Firefox 4, PostgreSQL 9 or whatever with big
> number.
>
> I'm not a huge fan of huge updates in "stable" Firefox3->Firefox4,
> Kde4.5->Kde4.6 etc. In fact I would prefer to avoid them. But
> sometimes people want this latest and greatest, shiny
>
> Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
> Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
> Am I right?

How hard would it be to "cherry-pick" from this backports repository? To
install a newer Firefox from there for example, but keep the PostgreSQL from
the ordinary Fedora even if there is a newer one in the backports repository,
and with a simple "yum update" receive bugfixes to PostgreSQL from fedora-
updates and new Firefox versions from the backports repository?

If the backports repository would be an "all or nothing" thing, or if cherry-
picking would require special tweaking of Yum, then it's a bad idea.

Björn Persson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 12:25 AM
Michał Piotrowski
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo?

2010/9/21 Björn Persson <bjorn@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>:
> Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> Ok, so maybe it's time to setup Fedora "backports" repo for these that
>> wants new and shiny Firefox 4, PostgreSQL 9 or whatever with big
>> number.
>>
>> I'm not a huge fan of huge updates in "stable" Firefox3->Firefox4,
>> Kde4.5->Kde4.6 etc. In fact I would prefer to avoid them. But
>> sometimes people want this latest and greatest, shiny
>>
>> Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
>> Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
>> Am I right?
>
> How hard would it be to "cherry-pick" from this backports repository? To
> install a newer Firefox from there for example, but keep the PostgreSQL from
> the ordinary Fedora even if there is a newer one in the backports repository,
> and with a simple "yum update" receive bugfixes to PostgreSQL from fedora-
> updates and new Firefox versions from the backports repository?
>
> If the backports repository would be an "all or nothing" thing, or if cherry-
> picking would require special tweaking of Yum, then it's a bad idea.

yum-plugin-priorities?

>
> Björn Persson

Regards,
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-22-2010, 08:38 PM
Benny Amorsen
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo?

Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> writes:

> What exactly is the fear here with these updates? Are there many
> desktop users who do NOT want the latest released Firefox? Are there
> many people using Fedora as their OS for their database server?

I don't know about "many", but there is at least one organisation
which runs production databases on Postgres on Fedora. People keep
saying that "Fedora isn't for servers", but I just don't see why not.
Getting stuck with years-old software in RHEL is no fun at all...
Neither is self-compiling or third-party repositories.

Anyway, it is unfortunate that the timing is such that Postgres 9 can't
make it in time for Fedora 14. Please don't put Postgres 9 into Fedora
14 if it doesn't make it from the start. Major upgrades to Postgres are
not something you want to happen during normal maintenance.


/Benny
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-22-2010, 11:29 PM
Björn Persson
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo?

Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2010/9/21 Björn Persson <bjorn@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>:
> > How hard would it be to "cherry-pick" from this backports repository? To
> > install a newer Firefox from there for example, but keep the PostgreSQL
> > from the ordinary Fedora even if there is a newer one in the backports
> > repository, and with a simple "yum update" receive bugfixes to
> > PostgreSQL from fedora-updates and new Firefox versions from the
> > backports repository?
> >
> > If the backports repository would be an "all or nothing" thing, or if
> > cherry-picking would require special tweaking of Yum, then it's a bad
> > idea.
>
> yum-plugin-priorities?

The first thing I notice is that that plugin comes with exactly zero
documentation. A wiki page from CentOS and two posts on some random blogs give
some configuration examples and also warn about dangers that only a Yum hacker
will fully understand. Neither explains how to install selected packages from
a lower-prioritized repository, but my crystal ball indicates that it would be
troublesome compared to normal Yum usage.

Apparently all repositories have the lowest possible priority by default, so
users would have to edit every single .repo file by hand to give them higher
priorities than the backports repository. In other words, yes, special
tweaking of Yum would be required.

If the default priority were to be changed, and if the backports repository
would depend on yum-plugin-priorities and have a lower priority than the
default, and if it would have detailed usage instructions, and if it would be
carefully managed and tested to avoid the dangers of conflicts and obsoletions,
then an implementation based on the priorities plugin might be workable.


Another solution would be to simply have separate repositories – stored on the
same server and maintained by the same people, but with separately packaged
.repo files. If I can't wait to have the very latest Openoffice, I install the
fedora-backports-openoffice package which contains /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-
backports-openoffice.repo, and then a simple "yum update" will upgrade all the
Openoffice packages. If I don't want sudden changes to PostgreSQL, then I
refrain from installing fedora-backports-postgresql. Mission accomplished.

Björn Persson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-23-2010, 02:36 AM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo?

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 22:38:21 +0200,
Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk> wrote:
>
> I don't know about "many", but there is at least one organisation
> which runs production databases on Postgres on Fedora. People keep
> saying that "Fedora isn't for servers", but I just don't see why not.

Because it is more work. If one is managing lots of systems as part of a
job, you want to be efficient in how your time is used. Fedora systems
change to fast for that.

If you are running a server for a hobby and have some reason for running
Fedora, then it is a reasonable choice.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-23-2010, 01:15 PM
James Antill
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo?

On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 01:29 +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > 2010/9/21 Björn Persson <bjorn@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>:
> > > How hard would it be to "cherry-pick" from this backports repository? To
> > > install a newer Firefox from there for example, but keep the PostgreSQL
> > > from the ordinary Fedora even if there is a newer one in the backports
> > > repository, and with a simple "yum update" receive bugfixes to
> > > PostgreSQL from fedora-updates and new Firefox versions from the
> > > backports repository?
> > >
> > > If the backports repository would be an "all or nothing" thing, or if
> > > cherry-picking would require special tweaking of Yum, then it's a bad
> > > idea.
> >
> > yum-plugin-priorities?
>
> The first thing I notice is that that plugin comes with exactly zero
> documentation. A wiki page from CentOS and two posts on some random blogs give
> some configuration examples and also warn about dangers that only a Yum hacker
> will fully understand. Neither explains how to install selected packages from
> a lower-prioritized repository, but my crystal ball indicates that it would be
> troublesome compared to normal Yum usage.
>
> Apparently all repositories have the lowest possible priority by default, so
> users would have to edit every single .repo file by hand to give them higher
> priorities than the backports repository. In other words, yes, special
> tweaking of Yum would be required.

There's:

http://yum.baseurl.org/gitweb?p=yum-utils.git;a=blob_plain;f=plugins/priorities/README;hb=90ea69cc7589160735fc67f341db210403bc7f6f

...but generally I don't recommend using priorities, as it's a big
hammer to solve a problem that shouldn't exist:

http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/ConflictingRepos

...or to put it another way, putting a new firefox and PostgreSQL in the
same repo. is a really bad idea.

> Another solution would be to simply have separate repositories – stored on the
> same server and maintained by the same people, but with separately packaged
> .repo files. If I can't wait to have the very latest Openoffice, I install the
> fedora-backports-openoffice package which contains /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-
> backports-openoffice.repo, and then a simple "yum update" will upgrade all the
> Openoffice packages. If I don't want sudden changes to PostgreSQL, then I
> refrain from installing fedora-backports-postgresql. Mission accomplished.

That's basically what we have now with repos.fedorapeople.org ... the
next thing from there is if we could trust those packages the same as
the ones from Fedora itself (and maybe get some mirroring). But that
will require a lot more resources.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-23-2010, 05:11 PM
Benny Amorsen
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo?

Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes:

> Because it is more work. If one is managing lots of systems as part of a
> job, you want to be efficient in how your time is used. Fedora systems
> change to fast for that.

On the other hand, Fedora saves a lot of time by not having to maintain
reasonably new versions of the server software you actually want to run
- be it Postgres, BIND, Apache, DHCPD or something else. Maintaining
those packages yourself is hard work, especially because you need to
stay up-to-date on security updates.

For me, Fedora definitely saves work over CentOS. The things that could
change this:

1) If Postgres 9 was released in the middle of a cycle so a security
upgrade ended up with forcing a full dump/reload of databases. I can't
see that happening.

2) If Ruby keeps falling behind. (I'm sure others feel the same about
Python...)

3) If Fedora ended up too broken to use for more than one release, so I
couldn't just skip a cycle.

Fixing the upgrade script every 6 months is a small price to pay for
up-to-date software.


/Benny

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-23-2010, 09:34 PM
Bjrn Persson
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo?

James Antill wrote:
> There's:
>
> http://yum.baseurl.org/gitweb?p=yum-utils.git;a=blob_plain;f=plugins/priori
> ties/README;hb=90ea69cc7589160735fc67f341db210403bc7f6f

Why isn't that file in the package? It leaves many questions unanswered but
it's better than nothing.

Bjrn Persson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM.

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