Apt at fedora.us
Panu Matilainen
pmatilai at welho.com
Mon Jan 31 17:00:56 UTC 2005
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Warren Togami wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> FWIW, I would like to see the complete apt'table (pre-)Extras SRPMS
>> repos available at fedora.us and its mirrors. The reasons have been
>> outlined in this thread.
>
> I have to admit that I don't understand if there is any purpose in this.
> "apt-get source" is only a convenience but otherwise is not very useful.
Well, 'apt-get install foobar' is only a convenience as well, you could
just as well manually locate latest version of, download and install with
rpm. I find it a major pain in the ass to manually locate the latest
version of a given src.rpm when apt (or any similar tool) can do it
automatically for you.
> "apt-get build-dep" does not need SRPMS at all except the local SRPM, which
> you already have locally because you want to build it. Is there some aspect
> of this that I am failing to see? I fail to see the "need" in this.
You have to manually locate and download the SRPM first, and then use
# apt-get build-dep /path/to/srpms/foobar-1.2-1.src.rpm
compared to just
# apt-get build-dep foobar
It IS a much more convenient for us who deal with SRPMS a lot. Because the
lack of the SRPMS I keep a local apt-enabled mirror of FC to be able to
access the SRPMS without all the manual work, which feels somewhat
ridiculous to me.
>
> From the perspective of mirror administrators it is somewhat painful to host
> redundant RPMS. I personally don't have the disk space to do this forever
> with all distributions.
>
> I suppose it is tolerable to do only SRPMS.extras of the latest stable
> distribution. When FC4 happens, I will wipe the 3 SRPMS.extras. Is this
> acceptable? I will however not add the base and updates SRPMS.
That'd be a definite improvement over not having the SRPMS at all.
- Panu -
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list