Upcoming transition of FC3

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 11:49 -0400, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> Yep, I can put one together.  You do mean 'FC3' and not 'FC5',  
> correct? :)  What do you think is better - to create separate RPMs  
> (one for each arch), or to have all the repo configs in one RPM and  
> then just have people enable the correct one by hand?  I'm assuming  
> that we're going to leave everything disabled by default, but what do  
> people think?
> 
> Personally, I think having one RPM with all the repo files in it  
> (disabled by default), and also including the FL GPG key is the way  
> to go.
> 

Well, we need to get packages ready for FC3 for us to provide to the end
user, as well as packages ready for FC5 to be included in core
distribution.  Using $releasever and $basearch variables in our repo
file means we can supply one repo file that will work across releases.
No need to have different ones.

Since we'll have two packages (one we provide for FC3 and FC4, and the
one that will go into Fedora Core), the one we provide we can enable by
default.  The user grabbing the package and installing it seems to be
choice enough in my mind.  However the package that goes into core
should have the repo itself disabled.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating