On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 15:08 -0400, Cymon J. Cox wrote: > [Apologies for messing the thread - I wasn't subscribed to the list...] > > On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:52, Cymon J. Cox wrote: > >> Folks, > >> > >> Seeing as this has been discussed many times I'll get to the point: has > >> anyone considered poking an ordered dictionary through to ConfigParser? > >> Apart from touching a supposed private attribute (which I can live > >> with), this would seem to be a simple solution... > >> > [and Seth Vidal replied] > >Doesn't really work for the new config stuff that's in cvs-HEAD b/c the > >new config supports a yum.conf.d directory of repos. > > > >the directory entries could be named anything and sort order for getting > >them is whatever order the dir list is in. > > > >Better to sort by something the user has more control over - the repo > >id. > > Of course, a directory of rep.conf's should be prioritised (-able) by a > user defined repo-id, but isnt this a separate issue? > > The prioritising of repos in a single .conf is still 'newest|alphabetical > last', when I'm sure the user expectation is that a higher priority would > be afforded those repos listed first (or at least be an option). > 'Alphabetical last' makes no sense from a user standpoint - apart from > the nasty hack of prefixing the repo name with a numeral. > > Unless I'm missing something (and I havent read the cvs code), a > serverlist ordered by repoconfid then by repo-stanza position would still > make more sense to the user here than the current implementation. Why? The current implementation is documented and fairly straightforward. With the introduction of a repo.d dir the order in the file becomes very muddy. easier to have a consistent standard that is obviously applied across all repositories. moreover - the concept of pkgpolicy is going to be changed quite a bit I think - sort order dictating package use is not terribly flexible and needs to go away. -sv
