Re: meta-repository idea (was Re: mplayer vs. xine)

[Panu Matilainen <pmatilai welho com>]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, seth vidal wrote:

> 
> > Dunno, nobody ever complained apt having separate files for binary and
> > source indexes :) Not that I personally care about it either, I've enough
> > plenty enough bandwidth and would download the src.rpm stuff 
> > anyway. Just a bit of wasted bandwidth for everybody to download those but 
> > no big deal.
> 
> What does the difference work out to? Have you compared them?
> 
> like fc1 with srpms vs w/o.

For an RHL 9 based distro:
RPMS:
    1579532 Feb  3 16:59 filelists.xml.gz
    3245800 Feb  3 16:59 other.xml.gz
     512172 Feb  3 16:59 primary.xml.gz
        666 Feb  3 16:59 repomd.xml

SRPMS:
       77725 Feb  3 17:00 filelists.xml.gz
     1083911 Feb  3 17:00 other.xml.gz
      213598 Feb  3 17:00 primary.xml.gz
         666 Feb  3 17:00 repomd.xml

Whether the SRPMS part is big enough for "junk most users dont need" to 
matter I don't know.

> 
> > Ok, I thought it might have to do with that. OTOH there's a bz2 python 
> > module in python 2.3 which is in FC2, which I think is the "target" for 
> > this stuff anyway.
> 
> but if you're running createrepo on a mirror you won't necessarily have
> that mirror running fc2 or python 2.3.
> 
> Hell, I was reaching to think people would have python 2.2, rpm and
> libxml2

Oh I know.. having compiled rpm + apt-rpm on a Debian box just to be able
to put a repository there :)

	- Panu -