[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FC5 and Yum Plugins

Jeff Pitman wrote:

On 12/30/05, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta gmail com> wrote:
On 12/29/05, Axel Thimm <Axel Thimm atrpms net> wrote:
Exactly. Which is why any repo, be it atrpms or something else, that
does see a need to replace package foo in core, and thus has
overlapping package sets with core will not like this idiom. I have
already been hit by bug reports that stem from improper use of
priorities/weights and scores. Such filtering creates a lot more
issues and debugging problems than it solves.
let's be clear.... if protectbase plugin was turned on by default
would atrpm leave it enabled on client system or would you attempt to
disable the plugin via package scriptlet action?

For me, if someone wanted to use pyvault, I wouldn't automatically
disable it. But, I would have to document very prominently that if the
user wanted to use pyvault, they'd have to turn this off. And, it'd be
a FAQ, for sure.
So would third party repository maintainers consider Fedora Core having protectbase by enabled acceptable?. Would it better to document the exist the functionality provided by protectbase plugin within the Fedora release notes and let users configure it for themselves?

Learn. Network. Experience open source.
Red Hat Summit Nashville  |  May 30 - June 2, 2006
Learn more: http://www.redhat.com/promo/summit/

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]