On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 08:21 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 11:58 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
> I always replace the repositories given in the default entries
> by local repositories (I mean in Ireland, in my case).
> I don't know if that is standard practice.
It's not, since the default entries are to mirror lists and not single
sites. Your package requests go to a random mirror entry, meaning
there's a basic and large-scale load balancing that happens without you
having to do anything. What happens otherwise if your local repo is
down?
I wonder if the idea of having repositories package their .repo and
other files in an RPM is going to take hold? As long as the Core and
Extras repositories do that, we can use them as an example in such a way
that users understand they can do the same with a repo package from
their favorite outside repository.
Keeping our focus on *only* what ships in Core and Extras makes our jobs
both easier and hard. The old rule that, "When the only tool you have
is a hammer, suddenly every problem looks like a nail," that can happen
to us. However, it is awfully nice to have a scope.
This is my way of saying that I concur with Paul's assessment about
discussing with outside repositories.
One way to be helpful could be, if we had an FAQ with a question that
would have an answer of, "Don't cross the repository streams," we can
just tell people that if they are using non-Core or Extras repositories,
they may have conflicts between packages in those files, yadda yadda
yadda.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer *
http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/