<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
seth vidal wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid1107156724.1614.161.camel@cutter" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think it is correct to move src.rpms and debuginfo out of the default
path. Instead of moving this to the user to enable/disable it, I thought
to use differently named files within the repodata.
All information about src.rpms goes to new filenames and you can trigger
reading in the debuginfo files if a "*-debuginfo" package name is needed.
This puts the namespace question to the repodata and is adding special
interpretation to rpm package names ("*-debuginfo"), but tries to get
all this more transparent to the user compared to offering this via
configured repo locations.
?? Both ways have their pros and cons.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The con of doing it the way you're describing is that it implicitly
dictates something about the repository structure. Not sure I like that.
But i see your point about having them magically enabled. The only
problem is that for depsolving it doesn't make it much easier.
-sv
</pre>
</blockquote>
I have to put a vote in for having separate predefined metadata files
in the repo that will be checked only if enabled in the yum.conf file.
There will be separate metadata info for binary rpm, srpms and
debuginfo rpms. By default only the binary rpms metadata info will be
downloaded. Anyone needing srpms or debuginfo rpms can enable it in
yum.conf or perhaps an "--enablemetadata=srpms" etc. option can be
implemented.
<br>
<br>
I think this is what Florian was talking about instead of having
separate repos.
<br>
<br>
Demond
</body>
</html>