Fedora repository layout proposal

[Jeff Johnson]

Panu Matilainen wrote:

>
> While testing repoquery I noticed that the FC updates repository 
> metadata doesn't include the SRPMS directories at all. So far nothing 
> has used the SRPMS information but that's changing: yum-src for doing 
> things like installing build-dependencies is planned/in the works and 
> repoquery can already use that info, for example:
> [pmatilai at chip ~]$ repoquery.py --source -l yum
> yum-2.1.11.tar.gz
> yum-ia32e-2.1.11.patch
> yum.conf.fedora
> yum.spec
>
> Would be nice to have this fixed, at least in FC4 but why not FC3 
> updates as well, shouldn't be terribly hard :)
>
> While at it, it might make sense to split out the repository metadata 
> somewhat as suggested by Seth here: 
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum-devel/2005-March/000833.html
> In short: split SRPMS, debuginfo and the actual binaries to separate 
> repositories: most people will never need the debuginfo and source 
> packages yet having all those lumped into the main repodata slows down 
> yum operations and causes unnecessary network traffic as well.
>

If you are going to split out SRPMS/debuginfo (wise imho), then you 
should also consider splitting
multilib arches into seperate repositories.

The rationale for splitting say, i386 from x86_64, is to simplify 
package choices at a repo affinity
level, rather than based on multilib coloring, so that single arch 
platforms are easier to set-up and
maintain.

73 de Jeff