On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 10:39 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:30 +0100, Joel Andres Granados wrote: > > Why remove package dir from the treeinfo info? better. Why remove > > the info pointing to the package dirs? In fedora where the only > > package dir is Packages its a little redundant to have this info in > > the treeinfo file. but in other spins, where you might want to > > separate your repos into logical sections (RHEL) it might not work as > > well. The buildinstall process itself does not need this information > > because it just needs the anaconda-runtime package to build (AFAICT), > > but it would be good to be able to put a list of "package dirs" into > > the treeinfo file to reflect the stage of the tree. > > I would leave this change but put in some type of probing logic in > > treeinfo so as to find all the dirs that contain repositories (a valid > > repodata file) and put it in the treeinfo file. > > The package dir stuff is related to product path. In the day (today) > where everything is dependent on having repodata available, the > product/package path as it used to be is just no longer relevant. Even > for products which have multiple sets of repodata on the discs. Not everything requires repodata, conary for instance. The conary backend makes use of the product/package path. Elliot _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
