Difference between revisions of "Talk:Yum-plugin-priorities"
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | :summary | |
| − | + | : on a clean system priorities isn't needed, but won't hurt | |
| − | + | : if you've modified, this will protect you, but you may need to work through rare blocked updates, which can be documented | |
| + | : the yum fragment has to be modified in the base or a template-custom used | ||
| − | + | ---- | |
| − | + | If you are only using two priority levels why not look at protectbase. It basically does the same thing and you only have to indicate which repos you want to protect <small>— [[User:Slords|Slords]] ([[User talk:Slords|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Slords|contribs]]).</small> 22:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |
| − | + | ---- | |
| − | + | Is there a technical reason to prefer 'protectbase' over 'priorities'? If not, I'd prefer to stay with 'priorities' because, even though we're not advocating it for general use, it does have some more power for advanced users, or for future situations (I keep having ideas about this that turn out to be irrelevant when I start writing them down...) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | I think 'priorities' is easier/safer since 'protectbase' defaults all non-specified repos to 'protected', while 'priorities' defaults non-specified repos to priority 99. If we use 'protectbase' we have to make sure all users set all custom repos to unprotected or else they will be protected, while with 'priorities' all custom repos default to the "correct" behavior. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | I suppose this could be resolved by having the template expansion default repos to unprotected for any repo where "protect" is not set. | |
| − | + | [[User:Mmccarn|Mmccarn]] 14:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
---- | ---- | ||
| + | I don't see how protectbase is any easier to configure, given that we need a template to default non-specified repos to unprotected. | ||
| − | + | I suggest we add the template, db values and Requires to smeserver-yum | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | [[User:Snoble|Snoble]] 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 01:18, 26 November 2008
- summary
- on a clean system priorities isn't needed, but won't hurt
- if you've modified, this will protect you, but you may need to work through rare blocked updates, which can be documented
- the yum fragment has to be modified in the base or a template-custom used
If you are only using two priority levels why not look at protectbase. It basically does the same thing and you only have to indicate which repos you want to protect — Slords (talk • contribs). 22:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a technical reason to prefer 'protectbase' over 'priorities'? If not, I'd prefer to stay with 'priorities' because, even though we're not advocating it for general use, it does have some more power for advanced users, or for future situations (I keep having ideas about this that turn out to be irrelevant when I start writing them down...)
I think 'priorities' is easier/safer since 'protectbase' defaults all non-specified repos to 'protected', while 'priorities' defaults non-specified repos to priority 99. If we use 'protectbase' we have to make sure all users set all custom repos to unprotected or else they will be protected, while with 'priorities' all custom repos default to the "correct" behavior.
I suppose this could be resolved by having the template expansion default repos to unprotected for any repo where "protect" is not set.
Mmccarn 14:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how protectbase is any easier to configure, given that we need a template to default non-specified repos to unprotected.
I suggest we add the template, db values and Requires to smeserver-yum
Snoble 00:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
