On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 07:21:51PM -0400, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Oct 21, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Axel Thimm wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:53:45AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > >>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. > > I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean by the 2nd paragraph... To have core/updates/legacy and their testing subrepos in one file and have the testing bits disabled. > Anyway, here's an updated package with two main changes: > 1) all repos live in one file - fedora-legacy.repo > 2) file is marked as config(noreplace) in the RPM > > http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jeff/legacy/legacy-yumconf-3-2.fc3.src.rpm > > Spec: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jeff/legacy/legacy-yumconf-2.spec > > -Jeff > -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpaEdbLRBqzo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
