similar to: Atomic Repo links in http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories

I did the last major rewrite of the AdditionalRepos page, in large part because of issues we see repeatedly on the IRC channels. The repos placed in the "known problem" section are there for a good reason -- they replace base packages by default, or they're poorly maintained, leading to security issues. Or both. Atomic falls squarely into the former category -- it replaces key parts

[ https://www.centos.org/search.php?query=atomicorp&mid=30&action=showall&andor=AND forum search] returns a 404. Can the forum search https://www.centos.org/forums/search.php? be used with parameters that will provide the supporting material for the warning "Many CentOS users have had problems after enabling this repo"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Maybe I posted this a little late on Friday for anyone to take an interest in suggesting a properly built search URL for the current forum software, so I did some experiments which led to the suggestion added below the copy of the previous post. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:52 PM, I wrote: > [ https://www.centos.org/search.php?query=atomicorp&mid=30&action=showall&andor=AND forum

Excellent. Thank you; a most useful option of the MoinMoin wiki. On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Alan Bartlett <ajb at elrepo.org> wrote: > On 9 December 2014 at 21:19, PatrickD Garvey <patrickdgarveyt at gmail.com> > wrote: > > I would like to be given sufficient access to > > http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories that I may copy > the >

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 would like to be given sufficient access to http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories that I may copy the raw text to a SubPage of my HomePage. I propose to edit the links on that SubPage and submit it for review by anyone who may have sufficient knowledge to validate my changes. I have yet to work with the RPM Package Manager, so I will be making edits that need to be reviewed

Oops, I copied the page with the acl of the original page, which, of course, means I can't edit it. Lesson learned, I hope. Could you please fix the acl so I may proceed with my edit? Sorry to be such a bother. I'm more used to working on Wikimedia wiki's. My MoinMoin skills are rusty. On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:28 PM, PatrickD Garvey <patrickdgarveyt at 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. On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:34 AM, PatrickD Garvey <patrickdgarveyt at gmail.com> wrote: > Could someone please replace the contents of >

SerNet has en pages on their site: http://www.SerNet.de/en/samba/ Since I am maintaining the base (en) page page of http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories shouldn't the en SerNet home page be the reference in the SerNet paragraph? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 5 January 2015 at 16:34, PatrickD Garvey <patrickdgarveyt at 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

On 9 December 2014 at 21:19, PatrickD Garvey <patrickdgarveyt at gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to be given sufficient access to > http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories that I may copy the > raw text to a SubPage of my HomePage. > > I propose to edit the links on that SubPage and submit it for review by > anyone who may have sufficient knowledge to

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at 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

On 14/01/15 23:38, PatrickD Garvey wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:26 PM, John R. Dennison <jrd at 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

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:26 PM, John R. Dennison <jrd at 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

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

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 |

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

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

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

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