[users] SpamAssassin 3.1 in the EL4 branch?
dag at wieers.com
Mon May 8 16:03:50 CEST 2006
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Who Knows wrote:
> > Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > On Sun, 7 May 2006, Michael Best wrote:
> > > I guess I cannot please both sides and eventually I'm not pleasing
> > > neither :)
> > Which supports my earlier suggestion that rpmforge should include a second
> > repo for each distro named rpmforge-updates ( or something similiar ) where
> > packages that are part of the core are updated leaving it at the choice of
> > the user to decide if they want to stay strictly with the core packages or
> > stay update with new developements.
> Which potentially increases (by orders of magnitude) the complexity of the
> repo's interdependancies. As someone who actually maintains a semi-complex
> repo, I'd have to say that most (sane) repo maintainers will respond "Thanks,
> but no thanks" to requests such as this.
Exactly. I prefer that people use something like smart's priority scheme,
apt's pinning functionality or yum's protectbase plugin.
This will allow you to specify exactly what policy you require, because
the policy can be different for different people, something 2
repositories will not be able to provide.
Other policies could be that you eg. only want a few packages to have
priority over core packages, or only packages signed by me, or only
packages that have been in the repository for more than a week, or
packages that only change in minor releases, or ...
-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
More information about the users