CentOS-4.4 yumconf

The files /etc/yum.repos.d/* have moved from yumconf into
centos-release.

I don't know if this is planned but the net result is it
broke my yum 
config (again) and unless there is a good reason I don't
know of, it 
seems broken.

I have a site specific /etc/yum.conf and I don't want any
files in 
/etc/yum.repos.d/

I have a custom yumconf packages which prevents the centos
version from 
installing the files in /etc/yum.repos.d/ but that is no
longer effective.

Any ideas?

-- 
John Newbigin
Computer Systems Officer
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
http://www
.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

John Newbigin wrote:
> I have a custom yumconf packages which prevents the
centos version from
> installing the files in /etc/yum.repos.d/ but that is
no longer effective.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 

how about your own package provide a yumconf and a
centos-release ? that
way you can effectively lock out the Centos-distro-yum
config's

-- 
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ :
2522219icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Karanbir Singh wrote:

> John Newbigin wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> how about your own package provide a yumconf and a
centos-release ? that
> way you can effectively lock out the Centos-distro-yum
config's
I still need the real files from centos-release (such as 
/etc/redhat-release) which may change from time to time
(when 4.5 comes 
out).  I could create my own replacement but I think that
the files 
belong in the yumconf package and this may well be a centos
bug.


> 


-- 
John Newbigin
Computer Systems Officer
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
http://www
.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

> I still need the real files from centos-release (such
as
> /etc/redhat-release) which may change from time to time
(when 4.5 comes
> out).  I could create my own replacement but I think
that the files
> belong in the yumconf package and this may well be a
centos bug.

This also causes a related issue for RHEL users who want to
use yum.
In posts to the yum mailing list, it's often recommended
that RHEL
users grab yum from the centos repositories. As of the 4.4
release,
they can no longer do this as yum requires yumconf, provided
by
centos-release, which will overwrite their
/etc/redhat-release, and
/etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources files among others. This either
keeps them
from using our yum packages, or forces them to migrate to
centos which
they may not be aware of if they install centos-release
without
thinking it through.

I see this as an interoperability issue, and it should be
discussed a
bit. I'm not convinced that  a yumconf package is the way
to go, but
providing the files in centos-release doesn't seem to be
the right way
either. Other opinions?

-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Jim Perrin wrote:
>> I still need the real files from centos-release
(such as
>> /etc/redhat-release) which may change from time to
time (when 4.5 comes
>> out).  I could create my own replacement but I
think that the files
>> belong in the yumconf package and this may well be
a centos bug.
> 
> I see this as an interoperability issue, and it should
be discussed a
> bit. I'm not convinced that  a yumconf package is the
way to go, but
> providing the files in centos-release doesn't seem to
be the right way
> either. Other opinions?
> 

if the files are (config) type, then a locally user modified
version
will superseed the new rpm based one, and will result in
your config's
being left alone with the new files being dropped as .rpmnew

I'd presume this is what happened ?

-- 
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ :
2522219icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

> if the files are (config) type, then a locally user
modified version
> will superseed the new rpm based one, and will result
in your config's
> being left alone with the new files being dropped as
.rpmnew
> I'd presume this is what happened ?

Not in this instance no. 90% of users have no reason to
modify
/etc/issue, /etc/redhat-release, or
/etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources, so
these files will be overwritten most of the time. While
adjusting our
packages so that they can be used on both RHEL and centos
isn't
exactly a centos specific concern, it is the neighborly
thing to do.


-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 01:01 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Jim Perrin wrote:
> >> I still need the real files from
centos-release (such as
> >> /etc/redhat-release) which may change from
time to time (when 4.5 comes
> >> out).  I could create my own replacement but I
think that the files
> >> belong in the yumconf package and this may
well be a centos bug.
> > 
> > I see this as an interoperability issue, and it
should be discussed a
> > bit. I'm not convinced that  a yumconf package is
the way to go, but
> > providing the files in centos-release doesn't
seem to be the right way
> > either. Other opinions?
> > 
> 
> if the files are (config) type, then a locally user
modified version
> will superseed the new rpm based one, and will result
in your config's
> being left alone with the new files being dropped as
.rpmnew
> 
> I'd presume this is what happened ?

The purpose of this change is so that we mirror what is done
by
upstream.

They provide their update sources in redhat-release file.

A separate RPM for yumconf (and up2date-conf) is redundant.

Have it be part of yum or up2date is bad ...

I have no problem with a sperate yumconf package, but it is
not in
keeping with upstream. 

If you produce a package with a new CentOS-Base.repo (and
force install
it) that overwrites the other file, then when new updates
happen it will
produce rpmnew files and should not affect you at all.

As I said ... i can be easily convinced to to shift back,
but shouldn't
we try to do things like upstream?
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Johnny Hughes wrote:

>>
>>if the files are (config) type, then a locally user
modified version
>>will superseed the new rpm based one, and will
result in your config's
>>being left alone with the new files being dropped as
.rpmnew
>>
>>I'd presume this is what happened ?
The problem is an rpm issue where if you delete a config
file, it will 
'come back' when an update is installed.
> 
> 
> The purpose of this change is so that we mirror what is
done by
> upstream.
> 
> They provide their update sources in redhat-release
file.
> 
> A separate RPM for yumconf (and up2date-conf) is
redundant.
> 
> Have it be part of yum or up2date is bad ...
> 
> I have no problem with a sperate yumconf package, but
it is not in
> keeping with upstream. 
Does the upstream contain the yum confg files?  If not then
I don't 
think CentOS should be adding the files there.  I don't use
up2date so I 
can't comment on that.

In the past CentOS (yum) has required a yumconf, which is
still the case.

The finger could also be pointed at yum.  Perhaps I need to
change my 
reposdir config.

John.

> 
> If you produce a package with a new CentOS-Base.repo
(and force install
> it) that overwrites the other file, then when new
updates happen it will
> produce rpmnew files and should not affect you at all.
> 
> As I said ... i can be easily convinced to to shift
back, but shouldn't
> we try to do things like upstream?
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-develcentos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel


-- 
John Newbigin
Computer Systems Officer
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
http://www
.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 11:28 +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 
> >>
> >>if the files are (config) type, then a locally
user modified version
> >>will superseed the new rpm based one, and will
result in your config's
> >>being left alone with the new files being
dropped as .rpmnew
> >>
> >>I'd presume this is what happened ?
> The problem is an rpm issue where if you delete a
config file, it will 
> 'come back' when an update is installed.
> > 
> > 
> > The purpose of this change is so that we mirror
what is done by
> > upstream.


what's 'the upstream' in this case?

You mean where fedora is putting it?

-sv


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 22:56 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 11:28 +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
> > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > 
> > >>
> > >>if the files are (config) type, then a
locally user modified version
> > >>will superseed the new rpm based one, and
will result in your config's
> > >>being left alone with the new files being
dropped as .rpmnew
> > >>
> > >>I'd presume this is what happened ?
> > The problem is an rpm issue where if you delete a
config file, it will 
> > 'come back' when an update is installed.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The purpose of this change is so that we
mirror what is done by
> > > upstream.
> 
> 
> what's 'the upstream' in this case?
> 
> You mean where fedora is putting it?
> 

not specific to yum configs, but just config files for
updates in
general.  rhn sources file, yum config, etc.

In RHEL , the RHN files are included in redhat-release.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel