Johnny Hughes wrote:
[snip]
> Using the date added to the mirror is not good. A copy with the wrong
> switches ... signing with a different key, etc. changes that (when the
> package is actually the same). Not to mention that we maintain several
> repos that get rebuilt at different times.
[snip]
> It is a major change ... the entire repo is looked at as a whole at
> rebuild time for the metadata, not as 10,000 packages but as one entity.
> Because of this fact (as Bryan has pointed out), you would need to keep
> older entire repo snapshots of the metadata to use to resolve your
> dependencies separately.
>
> The more I look at this problem, the more I see that a local repo
> maintained by the local user is the right answer. It works right now,
> requires no changes, and let's you control EXACTLY what you want in your
> repo (including files from other places in a single repo).
[snip]
Everyone who has actually done any real configuration management has
said this exact thing several times in this thread, and it seems to
do absolutely no good.
> You can freeze package xxxxx and it dependencies as you see fit, and add
> only tested packages to the repo. It is just the right way to do
> version control if you don't want to just use the version control that
> is published by the repo maintainer.
This has been repeated until people are blue in the face, and it
doesn't make a dent.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
