Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:16:25 +0000 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
QUOTED-PRINTABLE |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I'm with you Troy. Keep the conf files separate. In fact, I'd rather
there was an RPM for each 'repository', so I can leave them all out and
create my own for our local mirrors. But maybe that's a tad extreme.
Martin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Troy Dawson
> Sent: 15 March 2007 21:41
> To: Karanbir Singh
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: yum-conf format
>
> Karanbir Singh wrote:
> >
> > Considering everyone has moved to including the yumconfigs in the
> > -release package, I wonder why you are still shipping alternate
> > yumconf packages?
> >
> > - KB
>
> Everyone hasn't *moved* to including the yum configuration in
> the main release package, it's always been that way. And
> we've always pulled it out. It's been that way since yum 1.0.
> And I've always wondered why people put it in the main
> package of yum.
> Yes, yum has to have a yum-conf in order for it to do
> anything, but why replace an entire program, just to change
> it's configuration file.
> Troy
> --
> __________________________________________________
> Troy Dawson [log in to unmask] (630)840-6468 Fermilab
> ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
> __________________________________________________
>
|
|
|