Re: Upcoming transition of FC3

[Jeff Sheltren <sheltren cs ucsb edu>]

On Oct 21, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 14:37 -0400, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
>
> > Notice there are separate repo files for base, updates, updates-
> > testing and utils.  I think this goes better with the new yum.repos.d
> > format than having only one repo file.  Also, both base and updates
> > are enabled, testing and utils are not enabled by default.  I think
> > this is a sane and safe default, but I'm open to suggestions.
> >
> > When building for FC5, we'll need to disable all repos by default.  I
> > will proceed with that package once we all (or most) agree on this
> > one :)
>
> I never did like all the extra repo files for each repository.  I  
> liked
> the idea of one file per family, so there was one file for say
> freshrpms, one for atrpms, one for extras, one for core/updates,  
> one for
> Legacy.  Each having sub-repos such as testing/devel/whatever.  But
> thats just my opinion.  Easier to edit one file than 4.  Fedora  
> steering
> folks tell me that I can go w/ what I prefer.  Thoughts?

Like I said, I prefer having multiple repo files.  I find the files  
to get "messy" once you start adding a lot of repos to one file.  Of  
course, that's just personal preference.  I think that multiple files  
make things easier for those that want to modify a repo.  For  
example, say I am going to mirror the base + updates for FC3, but I  
will very rarely or never use updates-testing or legacy-utils.   
Instead of having to edit a file, I can simply copy out a new file  
for each repo (base & updates) I want to change and leave the others  
alone.  For one host this may seem pointless, but for a large number  
of hosts I find copying a file is easier and cleaner than editing files.

That said, I'm willing to change the RPM to use one legacy.repo if  
that's what you think is best.  If anyone else has any input one way  
or the other, feel free to chime in.

-Jeff