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
Attachment:
pgpn1x3zn6cQj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
