Re: up2date stupidity

On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 10:45, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> [Off topic]
> 
> In pondering the design of up2date, I'm struck by a question:
> 
> Does anybody *else* think that it was short-sighted that up2date will
> consult only a single server?

If you're trying to sell up2date as a service (sell RHN as a service -
whatever, I'm not in marketing) then no, this was a great idea. :)

If you're trying to reimplment it, then yeah, its inconvient at best.
Sub-channels, when we get those working, will take much, but certainly
not all of the sting out of this one. 

Yum allows this (assumes it, almost), but that is a converstation for a
different list. 

> 
> Never mind back-up servers. I'm thinking that I'ld like to publish a
> channel for the EROS stuff and let people subscribe to that without
> forcing them to grab all of their RedHat updates from my server as a
> side effect.
> 
> Conceptually, it shouldn't be hard to modify up2date to associate a
> server with each channel individually. Am I missing something painfully
> obvious?

A) That would mean patched clients, which is a no no for current.

B) Uh, have you looked at rpmSource.py? That, as far as I can tell, is
where such code would need to go, and I'm not convinced I could figure
it out.

If you are absolutely dead set on trying it - go ahead. Current will
NEVER ship a patched client, _but_ I'd be willing to include an URL to
it or the patch or whatever.

-- 
Hunter Matthews                          Unix / Network Administrator
Office: BioScience 145/244               Duke Univ. Biology Department
Key: F0F88438 / FFB5 34C0 B350 99A4 BB02  9779 A5DB 8B09 F0F8 8438
Never take candy from strangers. Especially on the internet.