On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 17:55, Michael Stenner wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 03:11:23PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 15:08 -0400, Cymon J. Cox wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 11:52, Cymon J. Cox wrote: > > > Of course, a directory of rep.conf's should be prioritised (-able) by a > > > user defined repo-id, but isnt this a separate issue? > > > > > > 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. > > I think I agree with Seth on this. I would probably not design it > this way from scratch, but the history kinda puts me over the edge. > The real technical advantage is this: > > With alphabetic repo sorting, there is only one layer of sorting. In > contrast, sorting by priority means you have two layers of _different_ > sorting: 1) repos are sorted by appearance. OK, what about conf.d > files? 2) oh, they're sorted alphabetically. Ah, OK. I was imagining there would be still be a yum.conf with a main stanza followed by list of the repo-ids that point to the individual repo confs that the user had defined. In which case you could have a single sorting criterion of first-in-highest-priority (provided of course that the ordered dict was used in ConfigParser...). Anyway, 'nuff said. Cheers, C. -- Cymon J. Cox <cymon@xxxxxxxx>
