Proposed F13 feature: drop separate updates repository

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Wed Dec 2 16:43:47 UTC 2009

On 12/02/2009 05:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:27:17 +0100
> Ralf Corsepius<rc040203 at>  wrote:
>> On 12/02/2009 05:09 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> Matthew Booth (mbooth at said:
>>>> The separate updates directory has been a pain for as long as I've
>>>> been using RHL/Fedora Core/Fedora. It means you have two places to
>>>> look when searching for packages manually, and twice as much to
>>>> configure when you're configuring yum. It has never benefitted me,
>>>> or anybody I know, but it has caught me out on any number of
>>>> occasions. What's more, nobody really seems to know why it's like
>>>> that: it seems it's always been that way, and nobody ever bother to
>>>> fix it.
>>>> So lets fix it. The package set at release time is only interesting
>>>> to historians. If any of them are really that bothered, I'm sure
>>>> somebody can come up with a yum module which finds the oldest
>>>> available version of a package in a repo.
>>> The separate Everything tree that does not get obsoleted is required
>>> in some form for GPL compliance, with respect to the ISO images that
>>> we ship.
>> Isn't this the "Fedora" repo?
>> To my knowledge the "Fedora" repos corresponds 1:1 to the isos.
> To the DVD iso, yes.
> To any of the spins/desktop/live... nope. They use packages from
> Everything/

A question however remains:
Does the FSF/GPL demand to keep a repo around for ISOs?
A "rolling Everything" would not touch the ISOs. They would still be around.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list