repository creation

[Demond James]

seth vidal wrote:

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>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
>
>
>  
>
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.

I think this is what Florian was talking about instead of having 
separate repos.

Demond
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20050131/d7a6539b/attachment.htm>