On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:21 -0500, James Antill wrote: > So to re-open a discussion from 2004: > > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/2004-March/004134.html > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/2004-March/004135.html > > ...what do people think of having a _non-configurable_ user-agent string > like: > > urlgrabber/3.0.0 YUM/3.2.11 > > ...where the first part comes from urlgrabber, and the second we add[1], > this provides two benefits: > > 1. It allows us to track which versions people are using on Fedora etc. > > 2. It allows people to configure holes in their firewall for YUM. > > ...the BZ that wants this is for #2, but I figure #1 is useful enough we > don't have to discuss how bad that is. > > > [1] It might even be nice to have the Fedora rpms change it to give the > entire rpm epoch/version/release maybe even add updatesd in their too. >
sigh. We had this before. And it seems to have left at some point. urlgrabber's setup can accept it, iirc -sv _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
