On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:31:01 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > Technically, I don't see any need for apt to adopt yum's repodata > > > format. Politically, this requirement is introduced by RH not wanting to > > > add apt-repositories and fedora.us apparently being unable to set up > > > complete repositories. > > > > Unless I'm misinformed, fedora.us even provides an apt-repository for > > pre-extras. What do you mean with "unable to set up complete > > repositories"? > SRPMS apt-repositories are missing for pre-extras. > > This renders "apt-get source" and "apt-get build-dep" non-applicable to > fedora.us hosted apt-repositories and therefore voids at least these > aspects where apt is superior to yum. > > I had asked Warren Togami to add them on PM and he answered: > "There is little good reason to do so. Trying to limit the size of that > repository because many mirror administrators see it as redundant." > > This is not true, SRPMS apt-repositories are not redundant. Not having > them implies loss of functionality to apt. Well, then I think the Apt community may need to prove him wrong and do some lobbying. If an Apt repository is provided, it ought to be complete. Making "apt-get source" fail is a repository bug, if not an act of sabotage. With many small changes in repository layout and location, we confuse the users and don't benefit from that. Pre-Extras started without Apt support, although the "apt" package is offered. Between FC1 and FC2, the fedora.us Yum repository locations changed. The suggestion to make the FC1 repository mirror the new layout in addition to its old layout, was ignored without comment. As a result, yum config example like provided at fedorafaq.org failed and had to be made distribution-specific, because $releasever could not be used in common config file for all supported distribution versions. This is bad. And the relocation to download.fedora.redhat.com is yet to come. Another change. Sigh.
Description: PGP signature