[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Please rebuild your packages in the development tree of Fedora Extras

On 2/16/06, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai laiskiainen org> wrote:
> Of course the problem with these has been that the SRPM repositories
> haven't really existed at all (in FC4 and earlier), never mind being set
> up by default.

Where is Core and Extras policy stand on how the repo metadata for
SRPM is going to be handled now? is repodata for SRPM split off in its
own repodata structure that requires additional repo entries? Last
time a look..awhile ago... it seemed to be handled inconsistently
across base and updates-released and extras for fc4.  Is there going
to be a consistent handling across base,updates,extras for fc5?

Is there a need for something like an fedora-release-srpm  package to
provide supplimental yum repo configurations to add srpms back into
repository calculations for base,updates and extras those who want it?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]