On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:03 -0500, Elliot Peele wrote: > 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. ... and you have your own scripts which build images, etc as well as a whole backend. Different backends *can* depend on different things Jeremy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
