[Yum] other stuff
dawson at fnal.gov
Fri Jun 28 15:48:36 UTC 2002
seth vidal wrote:
>>It would be more symmetric to just have
>>More descriptive, too, as server1 may not be a mirror but a different
>>server altogether, although one hopes that the requested RPM's and
>>groups are in the intersection of what the servers provide.
> that doesn't mesh with the model we already have. - I like the idea of
> collapsible and multiple servers. I also like the idea of servers
> providing SPECIFIC sets of files and not just being a grab-bag whence
> rpms arrive.
> so maybe something like:
> etc etc etc ad nauseum.
> the reason being I think the user might want to know if/when a server
> fails and my general opinion is this:
Syntax for the conf file, I'll leave in your hands. As long as it makes
general sense, I won't scream.
> I think the general rule to follow should be:
> if we can't get to any server/mirror in a single server section we exit
> if we can't get a headers.info file for any server-section we exit
> if we can't get a header that the headers.info file claims exist we exit
> if we can't get an rpm that the headers.info file claims exist we exit
> if we get an rpm that fails the gpg/md5 check we exit w/error.
> in general I want the default case to be "do nothing but tell you about
> it" rather than "try our best to continue despite the servers spewing
> lies and filth".
> It might cause more work for a user but I tend to the "don't break
> stuff" camp when it comes to installing things.
I believe this is quite reasonable and sounds good.
More information about the Yum