[Fedora-livecd-list] [PATCH 3/6] Setting the yumcache

[Jeremy Katz]

On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 15:51 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > So, I commented a little on Colin's related patch... I'm leaning towards
> > this approach, though.
> > 
> > On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 20:33 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >> A patch to change the location of the yum cache directory.
> >>
> >> This enables existing yum cache to be used, which in our case is
> >> especially useful because that cache is populated already. Most
> >> importantly, livecd-creator doesn't bind mount the yum cache directory.
> > 
> > Why not do the bind mount?  By bind mounting the cache as /var/cache/yum
> > in the chroot, you don't have to do any mucking with the yum config
> > which should make it so that you just have to get the option and if it
> > doesn't exist, fall back to the default.  It also makes the cachedir
> > available to the chroot in %post which people could take advantage of if
> > they wanted
> > 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'any mucking with the yum
> config'. Is it the 'temp' yum config livecd-tools you're talking about,
> LiveCDYum._writeConf()? 

Yep.

> That config isn't used in our case so it doesn't
> need any mucking, but I understand your point -if the --yumcache option
> is in livecd-tools and it doesn't get bind mounted, that'd need mucking.
>
> Bind mounting or not bind mounting is a different matter; it doesn't
> need discussion as much, because there's no specific reason we currently
> don't bind mount. It's no show-stopper -that I know of.

Right, I think that bind mounting makes the patch simpler and still gets
the same result.  So if there's not a reason the bind mount won't work
for you, let's go that route

> If the patch did the bind mount and let's one choose the yum cache
> directory to use (e.g., to bind mount), all is fine, right?

Yep, should be good to go

Jeremy