search for: tangiable

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

...th 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 goin...

...PMForge/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...

...gt;> 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 valid...

...in security and bugfix that they dont have on there. And I think the overall solution we have in place right now, really does this well in that we clearly communicate the upstream relationship, while still being able to deliver the common message on and around the centos-release spec. If there are tangiable situations where this change causes harm, then I am very willing to reach out and help find a solution : dont want to break existing installs nor reduce the info available. The other thing here in this conversation is also that there is a large emotional resistance to change. Folks expect the numb...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We would like to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 7 (1503) for 64 bit x86 compatible machines. This is the second major release for CentOS-7 and is tagged as 1503. This build is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 As always, read through the Release Notes at : http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS7 - these notes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We would like to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 7 (1503) for 64 bit x86 compatible machines. This is the second major release for CentOS-7 and is tagged as 1503. This build is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 As always, read through the Release Notes at : http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS7 - these notes