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

Re: Apt at fedora.us



Oops, I accidentally replied to Warren only, shorter version inline
below.  (A list copy is fine BTW.)

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 19:00 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 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.

With the current cvs.fedora.redhat.com setup, that's as trivial as
typing "cvs up ; make srpm" in the correct package's CVS working dir.
That works well enough for me.

> > "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.

Seconded.

Actually, I'm not personally that interested in the actual SRPMs, my
feeble "lobbying" comment above was pretty much inaccurate.  But I would
_really_ like "apt-get build-dep" to work, not only for Extras, but
core, updates, and updates-testing too.  All that's required for it are
the full apt source indexes; no actual SRPMs need to be available in
repositories, right?

> > 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.

Agreed, but I think for my needs, fedora.us hosting the full apt source
indexes for all repo components and no SRPMs at all would be even better
compromise.  Others may have different requirements though.


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