Upcoming transition of FC3

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:53:45AM -0700, 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?

I agree. Modularity is nice, and when sometimes missed too much,
people then tend to have each configuration line in a separate file :)

I'd even go as far as declare legacy as part of core/updates. In fact
that's how ATrpms distributes yum/smart/apt configuration
bits. core/updates/legacy (including disabled *-testing bits) are all
in a "base" config file.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20051021/4c926719/attachment.sig>