[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [PATCH] Do not show disabled repos.



On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:02:15PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 18:55 -1000, David Cantrell wrote:
> > I don't think we should be making this change, at least at this point in time.
> 
> The reason we're making it now is because the behavior didn't become
> apparent until /after/ we killed betanag, and since that was extremely
> late in the cycle we have to fix things extremely late in the cycle.
> Perhaps next time it would be prudent to do a test build in the "final
> format" prior to this point in the schedule.

Yes, I think we should do that for F-11.

> > If we don't want specific repos visible in the list, then we should remove the
> > .repo file from the install.img -or- the fedora-release package should not be
> > providing them for the F-10 release in the first place.
> 
> I'm not going to remove the rawhide repo from the fedora-release, it's
> how people get moved to rawhide when they want to make that jump.  If
> you want to work out some way to filter rawhide like repos at
> buildinstall time, have at it I guess.  It would be interesting to see
> how this could be done in a non-Fedora specific kind of way.

And I don't think we should be making non-blocking changes to anaconda at this
point in the release cycle.

> > To me, this seems like putting the fix in the wrong place.  I'll agree that
> > not displaying the rawhide or updates-testing repo in the list is reasonable
> > for F-10, but the fix for that shouldn't go in anaconda.  Like Chris said,
> > we're trying to get away from tying anaconda to specific releases.
> 
> I honestly don't see why the line has to be at "show me every
> repo" (except for the ones that have -debuginfo or -source in the
> name...) instead of "show me the repos that would be enabled by default
> post-install" which seems to me to be a much safer set to offer the
> user.

As Chris explained, that change was requested specifically in July, so now
we're talking about changing it at the last minute.  I personally don't view
this change as blocking, so I don't think it should be made.

-- 
David Cantrell <dcantrell redhat com>
Red Hat / Honolulu, HI

Attachment: pgpiq1a3J3YJz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]