Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
on 2-25-2010 1:44 AM Sorin Srbu spake the following: Hi all, I installed BackupPC on one of my Centos 5.4-machines following the wiki at http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BackupPC#head-725ed151d366bcf182cea92f765c373900cfc9dc, where BackupPC is installed from the c5-testing repo. r...@mach012 ~/ [0]# rpm -qa backuppc backuppc-3.1.0-1.el5.centos r...@mach012 ~/ [0]# Seeing how there's been some updates to BackupPC in the near past, I thought I'd run a yum update to get the updated package. That didn't work. So I searched pbone.net for a BackupPC package on CentOS5 but didn't find any. Doing the same search for RHEL5 gave me two packages (one for i386 and one for x86_64); v3.1.0-5. Looking more closely I saw that the RHEL5-packages were from epel, a repo one maybe shouldn't choose as a primary repo for ones CentOS-systems if you can help it. At least that's the impression I got from the various posts to this list. I thought all packages available from the prominent American upstream provider got a treatment from the CentOS crew? Am I wrong or am I missing something really basic, or some part of the CentOS philosophy here? Or isn't BackupPC a package worthy of being CentOSified? 8-) 3.1.0 is the latest stable version... The newer version has been marked beta for a few years now signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
-Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:53 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS All repositories are hard to use with other repositories. Yum doesn't pay attention to repo tags, so all they do is help point out problems after the fact. I think it was a dumb decision for epel to not use tags but it is worse that yum doesn't track where it got things. For packages you haven't installed yet, 'yum info packagename' will show the repository location(s). As an example of things that go wrong, on one machine I have subversion and viewvc from rpmforge (to get a version that is not ancient), but epel's build number for viewvc is higher and the rpmforge/epel versions land in different places and are incompatible. So, with my usual practice of leaving epel enabled during updates, I pick up epel's newer-numbered package which overwrites some of the rpmforge version and keeps some, leaving it very broken. But fortunately it's a standalone package and not to hard to fix by removing the one you don't want and re-installing with the right combination of enablerepo= and disablerepo= on the yum command line. When this happens to things with a lot of dependencies it is a real mess. I think I get the general gist of it. Thanks all who put me on the right path! -- /Sorin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts with the base. Yeah, I noticed that with rpmforge. I was just under the impression that epel was a bit dodgy as repos come. Never too late to be enlightened though. ;-) the following is my opinion, and nothing else: epel doesn't use a repository tag in their RPM names. this makes it hard to use with other repositories. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
On 2/26/2010 2:20 AM, John R Pierce wrote: epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts with the base. Yeah, I noticed that with rpmforge. I was just under the impression that epel was a bit dodgy as repos come. Never too late to be enlightened though. ;-) the following is my opinion, and nothing else: epel doesn't use a repository tag in their RPM names. this makes it hard to use with other repositories. All repositories are hard to use with other repositories. Yum doesn't pay attention to repo tags, so all they do is help point out problems after the fact. I think it was a dumb decision for epel to not use tags but it is worse that yum doesn't track where it got things. For packages you haven't installed yet, 'yum info packagename' will show the repository location(s). As an example of things that go wrong, on one machine I have subversion and viewvc from rpmforge (to get a version that is not ancient), but epel's build number for viewvc is higher and the rpmforge/epel versions land in different places and are incompatible. So, with my usual practice of leaving epel enabled during updates, I pick up epel's newer-numbered package which overwrites some of the rpmforge version and keeps some, leaving it very broken. But fortunately it's a standalone package and not to hard to fix by removing the one you don't want and re-installing with the right combination of enablerepo= and disablerepo= on the yum command line. When this happens to things with a lot of dependencies it is a real mess. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
Sorin Srbu wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:44:40 +0100: Doing the same search for RHEL5 gave me two packages (one for i386 and one for x86_64); v3.1.0-5. Not from Red Hat. I thought all packages available from the prominent American upstream provider got a treatment from the CentOS crew? Red Hat doesn't provide BackupPC packages. Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
-Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Kai Schaetzl Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:32 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS Sorin Srbu wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:44:40 +0100: Doing the same search for RHEL5 gave me two packages (one for i386 and one for x86_64); v3.1.0-5. Not from Red Hat. No, from epel. I thought all packages available from the prominent American upstream provider got a treatment from the CentOS crew? Red Hat doesn't provide BackupPC packages. So anything (more or less) that RH provides, we also get for CentOS while any extra fluff like BackupPC for CentOS, is 3rd party. Did I get that correct? -- /Sorin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
Sorin Srbu wrote: Sorin Srbu wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:44:40 +0100: Doing the same search for RHEL5 gave me two packages (one for i386 and one for x86_64); v3.1.0-5. Not from Red Hat. No, from epel. epel is just another third party repo. I thought all packages available from the prominent American upstream provider got a treatment from the CentOS crew? Red Hat doesn't provide BackupPC packages. So anything (more or less) that RH provides, we also get for CentOS while any extra fluff like BackupPC for CentOS, is 3rd party. Did I get that correct? yes, centos (base+updates) offers exactly what's in RHEL. Centos won't rebuild stuff that's in epel, rpmforge or any other third party repo, these packages should work the same on rhel and centos precisely because centos aims to be as close to rhel as possible. Also note that 3.1.0 is the latest stable release of backuppc. This is the version that you installed from c5-testing. It's also the same version offered in epel. 3.1.0-5 from one repo is not necessarily better than 3.1.0-1 from another: it's the same upstream code, the -5 is only useful for comparing within a given repo. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
-Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Thierry-Mieg Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:50 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS [...] 3.1.0-5 from one repo is not necessarily better than 3.1.0-1 from another: it's the same upstream code, the -5 is only useful for comparing within a given repo. I had no idea...! Is this a general thing with most (all?) repos? Thanks for the info! -- /Sorin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
Sorin, I've seen you posting on this list for a long time. There is no excuse that you don't know the simplest FAQs about CentOS. Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
On 2/25/2010 3:44 AM, Sorin Srbu wrote: Hi all, I installed BackupPC on one of my Centos 5.4-machines following the wiki at http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/BackupPC#head-725ed151d366bcf182cea92f765c373900cfc9dc, where BackupPC is installed from the c5-testing repo. r...@mach012 ~/ [0]# rpm -qa backuppc backuppc-3.1.0-1.el5.centos r...@mach012 ~/ [0]# Seeing how there's been some updates to BackupPC in the near past, I thought I'd run a yum update to get the updated package. That didn't work. So I searched pbone.net for a BackupPC package on CentOS5 but didn't find any. Doing the same search for RHEL5 gave me two packages (one for i386 and one for x86_64); v3.1.0-5. Looking more closely I saw that the RHEL5-packages were from epel, a repo one maybe shouldn't choose as a primary repo for ones CentOS-systems if you can help it. At least that's the impression I got from the various posts to this list. No, epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts with the base. They are just not perfect. It's probably impossible to be perfect without a single point of coordination, but you generally won't get in trouble leaving epel enabled during updates unless you also use other 3rd party repos. They also tend not to have as current packages as rpmforge, though. I thought all packages available from the prominent American upstream provider got a treatment from the CentOS crew? Am I wrong or am I missing something really basic, or some part of the CentOS philosophy here? Or isn't BackupPC a package worthy of being CentOSified? 8-) There is (was?) a version in centos-testing, but now that epel has it, there isn't much reason to have a duplicate. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
On 2/25/2010 7:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote: Sorin, I've seen you posting on this list for a long time. There is no excuse that you don't know the simplest FAQs about CentOS. I'm not sure there is any reasonable way to understand the state of 3rd party repositories. If there were, they'd probably fix their conflicts and avoid them in the future... -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
Les Mikesell wrote on Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:06:11 -0600: I'm not sure there is any reasonable way to understand the state of 3rd party repositories. If there were, they'd probably fix their conflicts and avoid them in the future... This wasn't what I referred to. He seemed to be unaware about how Centos works. Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS
-Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:52 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] Backuppc-updates on CentOS [...] Looking more closely I saw that the RHEL5-packages were from epel, a repo one maybe shouldn't choose as a primary repo for ones CentOS-systems if you can help it. At least that's the impression I got from the various posts to this list. No, epel is the best large 3rd party repo in terms of avoiding conflicts with the base. They are just not perfect. It's probably impossible to be perfect without a single point of coordination, but you generally won't get in trouble leaving epel enabled during updates unless you also use other 3rd party repos. They also tend not to have as current packages as rpmforge, though. Yeah, I noticed that with rpmforge. I was just under the impression that epel was a bit dodgy as repos come. Never too late to be enlightened though. ;-) -- /Sorin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
