[SASAG] Linux Server Distro Recommendations

Lamont Granquist lamont at scriptkiddie.org
Thu Aug 13 14:02:47 PDT 2009


All my servers have the dag repo configured but not enable by default so i 
can just do "yum --enablerepo=dag list | grep foo" to find the dag RPM.

If i'm not installing something one-off to play with on a scratch box, the 
RPM eventually winds up on my internal yum repo (using mrepo to mirror 
centos and rhel distros along with serving local repos) and then gets 
pushed out by cfengine code calling yum.

> cat /etc/yum.repos.d/dag.repo
# THIS FILE IS MANAGED BY CFENGINE DO NOT EDIT
#
# not enabled by default, use --enablerepo=dag
#
# do not do automated installs from this repository, instead pull the
# files locally, and install from a vetted repo
#
[dag]
name=Dag RPM Repository for Red Hat Enterprise Linux
baseurl=http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el5/en/$basearch/dag
gpgcheck=0
enabled=0




On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Atom Powers wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM, <jeremy at 2monkeys.org> wrote:
>>
>> Just a background question.  What does "too strict with packages" mean?
>
> Good question, I didn't want to be too specific at first.
>
> My experience with RedHat/CentOS is that the packages are maintained
> as binary package + security patch, and very little of the software I
> want is included in the base repositories. This makes it difficult for
> me to locate the software version I wanted, even if I knew the
> software I wanted was in the package repository. I ended up getting
> most of the software from dlutter's repo; but what's the point of a
> stable-target software repo if it doesn't have the software you need?
>
> I prefer source for packages, because I often have specific build
> options I need that may not have been built in the binary package.
> But, for obvious  reasons, binary packages are often better. (FreeBSD
> has both.)
>
> I rarely have problems with dependencies anymore, most of the packages
> managers seem to have figured that out. (Although upgrading perl was a
> lesson in pain.)
>
>> From a software management perspective, I think packaging is great.  You
>> know at a glance exactly what's on your system, what rev it's at, and that
>> all the precursors are in place.  While there was a time when I would build
>> from source and run make install, I'd never do that today.  If you need to
>> build software which is either not bundled in Your Distro of Choice or not
>> built the way you want it, or out of date, you can roll your own RPMs (and
>> .DEB packages) with a little advanced prep.  Unless you're managing a very
>> small number of servers, there's no way I'd go back to the old world.
>>
>
> -- 
> Perfection is just a word I use occasionally with mustard.
> --Atom Powers--
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at lists.sasag.org
> http://lists.sasag.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>


More information about the Members mailing list