On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 14:00 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
> > neno...@petrie:~$ sudo yum -c ak-bootstrap.conf
> > --installroot=/home/nenolod/bootstraptest install centos-release yum
> > ak-bootstrap 100% |=| 1.1 kB
> > 00:00
> > pr
William Pitcock wrote:
> neno...@petrie:~$ sudo yum -c ak-bootstrap.conf
> --installroot=/home/nenolod/bootstraptest install centos-release yum
> ak-bootstrap 100% |=| 1.1 kB
> 00:00
> primary.xml.gz 28% |=== | 328 kB
> 00:1
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 21:11 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> William Pitcock wrote:
> > I call bollocks here. I am using the version of yum in stable right now
> > to yield perfectly working virtual machine filesystems.
> >
> > How is it "broken" when it is working as expected on production servers?
William Pitcock wrote:
> I call bollocks here. I am using the version of yum in stable right now
> to yield perfectly working virtual machine filesystems.
>
> How is it "broken" when it is working as expected on production servers?
>
> William
This has been discussed many times, and detailed in
+ William Pitcock (Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:49:58 -0500):
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 16:25 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Luk Claes wrote:
> > > I'm afraid it's too invasive to be included, though I would propose to
> > > upload it to backports.org.
> > Then can the current broken version of yum be rem
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 16:25 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
> > Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm sorry that it took us so much time to make a working yum package,
> >> but we were quite overloaded with our work, taking over all the
> >> customers of another web hosting c
Luk Claes wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm sorry that it took us so much time to make a working yum package,
>> but we were quite overloaded with our work, taking over all the
>> customers of another web hosting company (taking all our time doing
>> support). Anyway, I could today ta
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry that it took us so much time to make a working yum package,
> but we were quite overloaded with our work, taking over all the
> customers of another web hosting company (taking all our time doing
> support). Anyway, I could today take the time to upload a
Hi,
I'm sorry that it took us so much time to make a working yum package,
but we were quite overloaded with our work, taking over all the
customers of another web hosting company (taking all our time doing
support). Anyway, I could today take the time to upload a working
version of yum. Here it is
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Vincent Danjean wrote:
>> 3) perhaps, try to push what is available in lenny backport into a
>> point-release
>>of lenny. This will depends on how many bug fix are present, how intrusive
>>the changes are, the release maintainers opinion, ...
>>
>> For me, 3 is not
Vincent Danjean wrote:
> 3) perhaps, try to push what is available in lenny backport into a
> point-release
>of lenny. This will depends on how many bug fix are present, how intrusive
>the changes are, the release maintainers opinion, ...
>
> For me, 3 is not the more important. Work on y
Hi,
I few general remarks about packaging in Debian (I never used yum nor
rpm).
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Philipp Kern wrote:
>> Anyway: there won't be new packages introduced into Lenny.
[...]
> How can I provide a set of patches when the problem is that 2 python
> modules are needed? We can't
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:35:20AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Philipp Kern wrote:
> > I'm curious why python-pyme is not sufficient.
> It's simply a MISTAKE that has been done by the last maintainer of yum,
> python-pyme is NOT the correct python package, python-gpgme is the right
> one. python
Philipp Kern wrote:
> I'm curious why python-pyme is not sufficient.
It's simply a MISTAKE that has been done by the last maintainer of yum,
python-pyme is NOT the correct python package, python-gpgme is the right
one. python-pyme is fully in python, while python-gpgme is written in C.
Maybe it wo
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:08:57PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Last before I stop annoying you with this issue: can I add an entry
> here, saying that yum shall be fixed?
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases/PointReleases/5.0.1
I'm curious why python-pyme is not sufficient. Anyway: there wo
Luk Claes wrote:
>>> http://www.debian.org/releases/proposed-updates
>> My question was more: what's the way to have a package uploaded in pu.
>> Should I write in a particular list? This one maybe?
>
> It's all mentioned on that page. If it's not clear, please tell me what
> part so we can update
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
>> Why is the python-iniparse also needed? That's not clear from the bug
>> report.
>
> Very simple: yum crashes with a not-so-nice error message when I try to
> boostrap a CentOS complaining about the iniparse python module not being
> present.
>
> I shou
Luk Claes wrote:
> Why is the python-iniparse also needed? That's not clear from the bug
> report.
Very simple: yum crashes with a not-so-nice error message when I try to
boostrap a CentOS complaining about the iniparse python module not being
present.
I should have add it to the bug report, but
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:08:49 +0100
Luk Claes wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Even though Debian is not RPM based, it's very important to have a
> > working Yum package in Debian, just to be able to setup all sorts
> > of yum based distribution in a chroot for setting-up VMs.
>
>
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I forgot to add...
>
> The current maintainer of yum AND rpm (Anibal Monsalve Salazar
> ) has been unactive for quite a long time now, there
> are outstanding very serious bugs without even any reply from him since
> 2006. We really need something to be done for rpm as well
I forgot to add...
The current maintainer of yum AND rpm (Anibal Monsalve Salazar
) has been unactive for quite a long time now, there
are outstanding very serious bugs without even any reply from him since
2006. We really need something to be done for rpm as well.
I have contacted the people fro
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Even though Debian is not RPM based, it's very important to have a
> working Yum package in Debian, just to be able to setup all sorts of yum
> based distribution in a chroot for setting-up VMs.
Indeed.
> Unfortunately, it seems that the current maintainer of Yum
Hi,
Even though Debian is not RPM based, it's very important to have a
working Yum package in Debian, just to be able to setup all sorts of yum
based distribution in a chroot for setting-up VMs.
Unfortunately, it seems that the current maintainer of Yum in Debian
haven't been active for a long ti
23 matches
Mail list logo
