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

Re: redhat abe

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, seth vidal wrote:

> > I think that's the least that needs to be done. As you say it is
> > easily fixable, and also until then it can be taken care of
> > server-side (where the question arises, what does the new repodata
> > format really buy us other than being xml? I was under the impression
> > that all depsolvers, rpm and deb and its cat were going to use it,
> > turns out it's yum and up2date only).
> Do you think that's the way I wanted it? no.The point of the metadata
> format was to remove the duplicate implementations of the same data. But
> sometimes you end up that not everyone wants to do any work to implement
> the functionality in their program. What more can be done to convince
> them to do that?
> So it's not a failing of the format, not as far as I've been told.

Only apt is not using the new metadata format, so all-in-all it has been 
very succesful. My only concern is that older distributions have been 
ignored. (yum 2.0, apt and up2date)

And even when apt is fixed, I still need to carry old-yum style metadata 
support (even though yum-arch is complaining and failing to understand 
that it is *NOT* obsolete) as long as we have yum 2.0 and up2date around 
in its current form on RHEL, RH, FC1 and FC2. (everything except FC3 :))

Fixing createrepo to provide old-yum metadata would be an acceptable 
workaround from the repository maintainer POV. Trying to get rid of
repository maintainers is an alternative too :)

--   dag wieers,  dag wieers com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]

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