Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: On 14/01/15 23:38, PatrickD Garvey wrote: Please help us (me, especially) understand what we may be doing to the detriment of your use of CentOS and thereby avoid that negative result. Lets flip this around - just going by your comments in the last few days, it seems to me that you dont actually use CentOS Linux at all and are largely unaware of how this ecosystem works. so, from your point of view, as a user - what is it that you use CentOS and what sort of roles do you deploy it in ? I am a retired programmer/system administrator. The last systems I maintained were IBM System/6000 running AIX and CATIA, a 3D computer-aided design package. I want to use CentOS to explore the aspects of operating systems that I was not allowed to explore with a proprietary system. I had a couple of 32-bit machines I intended to make into my lab, but the Linux community seems to have moved on to 64-bit images. So, while I acquire a new set of machines, I'm reading and trying to improve the documentation surrounding a particular distribution of Linux, CentOS. Any opinions I express are based on my 27 years in large corporations that used computers developed and sold by other companies, which includes 20 years ordering, receiving, installing, configuring, and running IBM equipment for large corporations. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Trevor Hemsley trevor.hems...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 14/01/15 23:38, PatrickD Garvey wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:26 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:09:01PM -0800, PatrickD Garvey wrote: Proposal: The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories, but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has happened in the past without naming names. You are looking for problems to fix where there are none. The overall state of that page is and has been fine for many years. EL requires external third- party repos. It has always been this way and it will always continue to be the case. Your proposal to remove the listings that are there now serves no one and will only create more of a support burden on the people that are volunteering their time. John I view your comments as an opportunity to understand an experience I have yet to have. Please share which repository you use and how it depends upon CentOS and how the CentOS community depends upon it. I view the entire FLOSS community as interdependent. I hope to make this page an asset for that interdependence. That's why I worked on the link rot. Karanbir seems to feel that certain phrases in the page unduly favor some of the repositories and that requires an objective evaluation. Please help us (me, especially) understand what we may be doing to the detriment of your use of CentOS and thereby avoid that negative result. That page is balance between coming right out and saying This, that and the other repo eat babies and destroy systems, do not use them without actually coming right out and saying that. There are repos that Do the Right Thing (tm) and do not blindly overwrite core packages from the CentOS repos. There are others that do. Some of the repos that overwrite core packages do so with little packages like sqlite (yum uses sqlite so changing the version of it is not a Good Thing for system stabilty). Other repos in that list have been effectively unmaintained for a number of years so they contain packages that may have severe unfixed security vulnerabilities. Now as far as the term Community Approved goes: I think it's fairly accurate and I'm not sure what the objection to it was. We have to have a way to say These repos are ok and these suck and these suck worse than that. The way the page reads at the moment seems to me to strike a good balance between providing useful information and avoiding libel! Trevor Thank you. My understanding is the term Community Approved was a summation of opinions, not an objectively measurable attribute and Karanbir wanted something more objective. I was trying to get us out of continually evaluating other repositories. How do you choose which to add to the lists on the page? How do you even know what exists that may need to be added to the page? As it stands the list is a result of experiences with several repositories. OK. Do we wait for an adverse experience before we add another? Or do we give a good understanding how one evaluates a repository and leave it up to the individual to make that evaluation and live with the consequence? In my experience with large corporations trying to work this out, it was considered best practice to support the positive and ignore the negative. Customers are responsible for their own choices. Positive guidance on how to select a good solution can leverage the qualities of your own product and not incur liabilities for contestable, even if legitimate, criticisms of particular alternatives. Saying these suck and these suck worse makes one liable for that opinion, even if one has an objective technique for that evaluation. CentOS has some ways to bless the work of others, SIGs and spins. Join us and we won't just praise your work, we'll help it evolve. Again, I'm looking for an understanding of your experience. This is what I have learned to this point. Let's move forward, even if that means leaving the article as it is now. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:09:01PM -0800, PatrickD Garvey wrote: Proposal: The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories, but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has happened in the past without naming names. You are looking for problems to fix where there are none. The overall state of that page is and has been fine for many years. EL requires external third- party repos. It has always been this way and it will always continue to be the case. Your proposal to remove the listings that are there now serves no one and will only create more of a support burden on the people that are volunteering their time. John -- Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan pgpeytxnKw9Fl.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On 14/01/15 23:38, PatrickD Garvey wrote: Please help us (me, especially) understand what we may be doing to the detriment of your use of CentOS and thereby avoid that negative result. Lets flip this around - just going by your comments in the last few days, it seems to me that you dont actually use CentOS Linux at all and are largely unaware of how this ecosystem works. so, from your point of view, as a user - what is it that you use CentOS and what sort of roles do you deploy it in ? -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: On 01/09/2015 11:49 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: KB -- I made those changes several months ago (Sep/Oct I believe), with discussion in IRC. This was after a spate of people in the main channel having issues with Atomic (there's a name that's going to end up causing problems...) and the continued use of RPMForge/RepoForge, with no indication that they're really really bad. As well as the recognition of the reality that there are a very few repos that are frequently recommended (and, in the case of EPEL, now easily enabled in CentOS). I think we should do a bit of work and find a tangiable set of standards that a repo needs to meet in order to be 'endorsed' or rated at a certain level. Because at the moment it does seem to add value to a repo or two over others, based on personal opinion. I am willing to write code to do this validation, but were going to need a set of good rules to implement. regards and thanks - KB Maybe it isn't code that needs to be generated. I obviously wasn't around for any IRC discussion of this page and its implications. I don't imagine there is any sort of log of that discussion I could review. Rhetorical questions and comments: Is it true some of these repos exist because CentOS wasn't adequate for some particular purpose, but someone thought they could provide a parallel resource to easily install additional software? I imagine another motivation would be a quasi-fork. That is, someone was offended that a particular decision was not to their satisfaction, but thought a repo could be used to eliminate the bad decision and implement their proposal. From Tom's comment I infer there was a need to warn people away from using some repos that were consuming significant resources to help folks who had trusted them. It also appears that somehow Fedora's efforts have been mutually beneficial. With these thoughts as background for my thinking, my brainstorm is that the Special Interest Groups and spins may be the path to solving the need to have additional non-CentOS resources and know they are sufficiently cooperative. Proposal: The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories, but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has happened in the past without naming names. The offer to help through Special Interest Groups and spins can then be noted. This would be used to enter into a cooperative arrangement with each group that wishes to start with the CentOS repositories and improve them. If one implements a set of software tests for the quality of other folks work, one is effectively committing to maintain those tests, which have no purpose within the CentOS project. That means a CentOS project member is diverting time from the CentOS project. Joint ventures, with agreements about how they will work, leverage the expertise of all participants for the benefit of all the projects. Unilateral Quality Assurance tests consume time just generating debates about the quality of the tests, even before the maintenance issue comes up. Atomic has a SIG. Maybe, EPEL needs one. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On 14/01/15 23:51, Trevor Hemsley wrote: Now as far as the term Community Approved goes: I think it's fairly accurate and I'm not sure what the objection to it was. We have to have a way to say These repos are ok and these suck and these suck worse than that. The way the page reads at the moment seems to me to strike a good balance between providing useful information and avoiding libel! Being able to quantify what good-behaviour might be ( eg. multilib lines up etc ) not only allows us to measure how good / bad a repo is, it also gives the other repos a yardstick to work through in order to become good. I realise that a good repo will do things that are hard to measure eg. delta between upstream release of a patch and when it shows up in repo; but a large bulk of things we should be able to automate I feel. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:26 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 03:09:01PM -0800, PatrickD Garvey wrote: Proposal: The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories, but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has happened in the past without naming names. You are looking for problems to fix where there are none. The overall state of that page is and has been fine for many years. EL requires external third- party repos. It has always been this way and it will always continue to be the case. Your proposal to remove the listings that are there now serves no one and will only create more of a support burden on the people that are volunteering their time. John I view your comments as an opportunity to understand an experience I have yet to have. Please share which repository you use and how it depends upon CentOS and how the CentOS community depends upon it. I view the entire FLOSS community as interdependent. I hope to make this page an asset for that interdependence. That's why I worked on the link rot. Karanbir seems to feel that certain phrases in the page unduly favor some of the repositories and that requires an objective evaluation. Please help us (me, especially) understand what we may be doing to the detriment of your use of CentOS and thereby avoid that negative result. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
The rules I went by weren't so cut and dried. EPEL was recommended because it is recommended -- the epel-release package is in centos-extras, packages from it are built to Fedora guidelines, are from Fedora packagers, it endeavors to not overlap upstream, and -- perhaps most importantly -- it is frequently recommended by Red Hat. Yes, I can hunt down knowledge base entries if desired, but that won't be useful to anyone who doesn't have a Red hat subscription. IUS and ELrepo are recommended because they fit areas where no other repo does, and they do it well. Again, both have excellent packaging standards. IUS provides software that is in base, but doesn't directly replace it (but may obsolete; again... good packaging), updates frequently, etc. There are other repos that do things like offer updated software as IUS does, but not in a way that avoids potentially breaking things. ELrepo provides hardware kmods that a lot of people would be unable to use CentOS without. The rules for the Not recommended category were more clear -- any repos that have been known to cause problems time after time. Replacing packages in the distro with no warning, not updating packages for major known security problems, packaging with missing dependancies, etc. Replacing packages that will break the OS (python, sqlite, etc) is a great way to get on this list. The rest go to the middle, and I very explicitly decided on alphabetical order to avoid any questions of preference. Some of these repos follow most or all of the best practices, most don't, and may even stray into the bad practice realm at times. But they haven't garnered a reputation for being either direction yet -- either due to not enough time or users or both. Tom (Zathrus) On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: On 14/01/15 23:51, Trevor Hemsley wrote: Now as far as the term Community Approved goes: I think it's fairly accurate and I'm not sure what the objection to it was. We have to have a way to say These repos are ok and these suck and these suck worse than that. The way the page reads at the moment seems to me to strike a good balance between providing useful information and avoiding libel! Being able to quantify what good-behaviour might be ( eg. multilib lines up etc ) not only allows us to measure how good / bad a repo is, it also gives the other repos a yardstick to work through in order to become good. I realise that a good repo will do things that are hard to measure eg. delta between upstream release of a patch and when it shows up in repo; but a large bulk of things we should be able to automate I feel. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro wrote: On 01/15/2015 03:44 AM, Mark Hahn wrote: CentOS repos. There are others that do. Some of the repos that overwrite core packages do so with little packages like sqlite (yum uses sqlite so changing the version of it is not a Good Thing for system stabilty). Other repos in that list have been effectively unmaintained for a number of years so they contain packages that may have severe unfixed security vulnerabilities. I suggest that we shouldn't use euphemisms when it's far more valuable to come out and say it. I would certainly appreciate if the centos docs explicitly tagged the other repos with these comments. Factual commentary about risks does not come anywhere close to libel... regards, mark hahn. A very old British story goes like that: A British business man was dictating to his secretary a letter for an incorrect business partner. Dear Sir Because I am a gentleman and my secretary is a lady, I cannot express in words what I think about you. However since you are neither one, I am sure you will understand what I wanted to say. Your sincerely, I've got to store that one somewhere easily accessible. My mentors always insisted one was not sufficiently creative if one truly needed profanity or its near proximity to encapsulate revulsion. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On 01/15/2015 01:09 AM, PatrickD Garvey wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: On 01/09/2015 11:49 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: KB -- I made those changes several months ago (Sep/Oct I believe), with discussion in IRC. This was after a spate of people in the main channel having issues with Atomic (there's a name that's going to end up causing problems...) and the continued use of RPMForge/RepoForge, with no indication that they're really really bad. As well as the recognition of the reality that there are a very few repos that are frequently recommended (and, in the case of EPEL, now easily enabled in CentOS). I think we should do a bit of work and find a tangiable set of standards that a repo needs to meet in order to be 'endorsed' or rated at a certain level. Because at the moment it does seem to add value to a repo or two over others, based on personal opinion. I am willing to write code to do this validation, but were going to need a set of good rules to implement. regards and thanks - KB Maybe it isn't code that needs to be generated. I obviously wasn't around for any IRC discussion of this page and its implications. I don't imagine there is any sort of log of that discussion I could review. Rhetorical questions and comments: Is it true some of these repos exist because CentOS wasn't adequate for some particular purpose, but someone thought they could provide a parallel resource to easily install additional software? Yes, it is. Some people need newer versions for applications than what the distro can provide. Other need complementary stuff which the distro or better said RHEL is not willing or not able to provide. [...] From Tom's comment I infer there was a need to warn people away from using some repos that were consuming significant resources to help folks who had trusted them. Right. Some repos lead to problems similar to: / Aug 28 14:27:15 TheAlien hey there, im having trouble updating packages on my server. yum update gives a long list of needed updates and sumarises 'Install 3 Package(s)// // / Upgrade 132 Package(s) / Remove1 Package(s)' but then says 'package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.remi.x86_64 (which is newer than mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386) is already installe//d' --// //Aug 28 14:27:24 TheAlien plus several messages like 'file /usr/bin/mysqlaccess from install of mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386 conflicts with file from package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.r// / Others simply are no longer properly maintained, for instance still shipping older versions of applications which have known vulnerabilities. // [...] It also appears that somehow Fedora's efforts have been mutually beneficial. Yes, they have but this has nothing to do with the wiki page we speak about. Incidentally EPEL aims to a high standard so as to make it suitable for an enterprise-grade distro which CentOS aims to be and that is why we recommend to all others packagers to follow similar rules ( when possible and if they make sense, of course ). However this is by no means a requirement that must be met in order to have a 3rd party repository listed in the CentOS wiki. With these thoughts as background for my thinking, my brainstorm is that the Special Interest Groups and spins may be the path to solving the need to have additional non-CentOS resources and know they are sufficiently cooperative. Proposal: The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories, but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has happened in the past without naming names. I can only concur with what John has said. You are looking for problems to fix where there are none. 3 months ago Tom has made a great job in cleaning the page up ( and several of us assisted him when he asked for opinions ) and - AFAIK - its current shape expresses the views of most of the regulars who provide help via the various CentOS support channels. If and when needed we modify the page but as it is now it is completely satisfactory for its purpose. Even if the feelings of some people get hurt by our opinions about the quality of their work ( i.e. of the packages they provide ). ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro wrote: On 01/15/2015 02:56 AM, PatrickD Garvey wrote: I want to use CentOS to explore the aspects of operating systems that I was not allowed to explore with a proprietary system. I had a couple of 32-bit machines I intended to make into my lab, but the Linux community seems to have moved on to 64-bit images. If the microprocessors you have were built this decade, they probably support PAE in which case CentOS 6 should run just fine. I am in the process of [slowly] phasing out 8..12 yrs old machines which still run quite happily CentOS5 and I am deploying C6 on their replacements. In other news, the new procs have much lower power consumption so beyond offering access to a larger set of applications, new systems pay themselves via saved energy If the microprocessors I have were built this decade, it was at the farthest chronological end of that period. I have spent some time examining the various Linux sub-communities and that, I'm afraid has essentially obsoleted my hardware. Additionally, I'd rather start with the most current edition of the OS so any knowledge will be applicable to what comes next. I seem to understand there has been quite a shift in the init system details from C6 to C7. Since details are what I enjoy studying, I prefer to study what will be around for a while. Thank you for your encouragement. I'll get some hardware soon and proceed from there. Learning to manage a cross-compiling environment could be an interesting study that would include both sets of machines. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Manuel Wolfshant wo...@nobugconsulting.ro wrote: On 01/15/2015 01:09 AM, PatrickD Garvey wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: On 01/09/2015 11:49 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: KB -- I made those changes several months ago (Sep/Oct I believe), with discussion in IRC. This was after a spate of people in the main channel having issues with Atomic (there's a name that's going to end up causing problems...) and the continued use of RPMForge/RepoForge, with no indication that they're really really bad. As well as the recognition of the reality that there are a very few repos that are frequently recommended (and, in the case of EPEL, now easily enabled in CentOS). I think we should do a bit of work and find a tangiable set of standards that a repo needs to meet in order to be 'endorsed' or rated at a certain level. Because at the moment it does seem to add value to a repo or two over others, based on personal opinion. I am willing to write code to do this validation, but were going to need a set of good rules to implement. regards and thanks - KB Maybe it isn't code that needs to be generated. I obviously wasn't around for any IRC discussion of this page and its implications. I don't imagine there is any sort of log of that discussion I could review. Rhetorical questions and comments: Is it true some of these repos exist because CentOS wasn't adequate for some particular purpose, but someone thought they could provide a parallel resource to easily install additional software? Yes, it is. Some people need newer versions for applications than what the distro can provide. Other need complementary stuff which the distro or better said RHEL is not willing or not able to provide. [...] From Tom's comment I infer there was a need to warn people away from using some repos that were consuming significant resources to help folks who had trusted them. Right. Some repos lead to problems similar to: Aug 28 14:27:15 TheAlien hey there, im having trouble updating packages on my server. yum update gives a long list of needed updates and sumarises 'Install 3 Package(s) / Upgrade 132 Package(s) / Remove1 Package(s)' but then says 'package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.remi.x86_64 (which is newer than mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386) is already installed' -- Aug 28 14:27:24 TheAlien plus several messages like 'file /usr/bin/mysqlaccess from install of mysql-5.0.95-5.el5_9.i386 conflicts with file from package mysql-5.5.25-1.el5.r Others simply are no longer properly maintained, for instance still shipping older versions of applications which have known vulnerabilities. [...] It also appears that somehow Fedora's efforts have been mutually beneficial. Yes, they have but this has nothing to do with the wiki page we speak about. Incidentally EPEL aims to a high standard so as to make it suitable for an enterprise-grade distro which CentOS aims to be and that is why we recommend to all others packagers to follow similar rules ( when possible and if they make sense, of course ). However this is by no means a requirement that must be met in order to have a 3rd party repository listed in the CentOS wiki. With these thoughts as background for my thinking, my brainstorm is that the Special Interest Groups and spins may be the path to solving the need to have additional non-CentOS resources and know they are sufficiently cooperative. Proposal: The Third Party Repositories section should not list any other repositories, but should only note there are difficulties in making several independent repositories safely usable and give a thorough explaination of what has happened in the past without naming names. I can only concur with what John has said. You are looking for problems to fix where there are none. 3 months ago Tom has made a great job in cleaning the page up ( and several of us assisted him when he asked for opinions ) and - AFAIK - its current shape expresses the views of most of the regulars who provide help via the various CentOS support channels. If and when needed we modify the page but as it is now it is completely satisfactory for its purpose. Even if the feelings of some people get hurt by our opinions about the quality of their work ( i.e. of the packages they provide ). ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs Thank you for the comments on my conjectures. I will integrate them with my previous data about how this project works. I guess I'm learning I should have let Karanbir Singh handle his own suggestion that if the article seemed to grade the various repos, someone needed to create an objective yardstick. I hope you'll remember I offered some up-to-date contents for the link anchors to those repositories. No one seems to
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On 01/09/2015 11:49 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: KB -- I made those changes several months ago (Sep/Oct I believe), with discussion in IRC. This was after a spate of people in the main channel having issues with Atomic (there's a name that's going to end up causing problems...) and the continued use of RPMForge/RepoForge, with no indication that they're really really bad. As well as the recognition of the reality that there are a very few repos that are frequently recommended (and, in the case of EPEL, now easily enabled in CentOS). I think we should do a bit of work and find a tangiable set of standards that a repo needs to meet in order to be 'endorsed' or rated at a certain level. Because at the moment it does seem to add value to a repo or two over others, based on personal opinion. I am willing to write code to do this validation, but were going to need a set of good rules to implement. regards and thanks - KB I don't believe I discussed it on this list, which is entirely my fault, but there were some revisions afterwards by others in the community to help do cleanup as well. On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org mailto:mail-li...@karan.org wrote: On 01/05/2015 04:34 PM, PatrickD Garvey wrote: Could someone please replace the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories with the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/PatrickDGarvey/AdditionalResources/Repositories ? I dont understand the concept of community approved. What does that mean ? -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 tel:%2B44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh http://twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org mailto:CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: On 01/05/2015 04:34 PM, PatrickD Garvey wrote: Could someone please replace the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories with the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/PatrickDGarvey/AdditionalResources/Repositories ? I dont understand the concept of community approved. What does that mean ? -- Karanbir Singh That came in with TomSorensen 's Large revamp in revision 187. The paragraph in that section isn't a sufficient explanation? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On 01/05/2015 04:34 PM, PatrickD Garvey wrote: Could someone please replace the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories with the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/PatrickDGarvey/AdditionalResources/Repositories ? I dont understand the concept of community approved. What does that mean ? -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
Patrick, looks fine to me. Thanks for the work -- when I did a major revision I tried to remove some of the rot and got tired of trying, along with refactoring the page in general. Your dedication is appreciated. On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:34 AM, PatrickD Garvey patrickdgarv...@gmail.com wrote: Could someone please replace the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories with the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/PatrickDGarvey/AdditionalResources/Repositories ? I believe I have removed as much of the link rot on that page as I am capable. If someone believes the links I have provided are not appropriate for the purposes of the article, please let me know. I'm still in the process of learning and will be glad to share the improved knowledge of any others. -- PatrickD Garvey Striving to be PDG. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Tom Sorensen tsoren...@gmail.com wrote: Patrick, looks fine to me. Thanks for the work -- when I did a major revision I tried to remove some of the rot and got tired of trying, along with refactoring the page in general. Your dedication is appreciated. You're welcome. Thanks for noticing. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Pull Request wiki.c.o/AdditionalResources/Repositories
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Alan Bartlett a...@elrepo.org wrote: On 5 January 2015 at 16:34, PatrickD Garvey patrickdgarv...@gmail.com wrote: Could someone please replace the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories with the contents of http://wiki.centos.org/PatrickDGarvey/AdditionalResources/Repositories ? I believe I have removed as much of the link rot on that page as I am capable. If someone believes the links I have provided are not appropriate for the purposes of the article, please let me know. I'm still in the process of learning and will be glad to share the improved knowledge of any others. Done. And assuming I have not made any mistake with the acl, you should now be capable of editing that page directly. Alan. After I logged on, the page displayed the Edit options. I was able to make a bad edit, display a Preview, and Cancel that edit. I think that indicates we have what we intended. Thank you, PatrickD ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
