On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:20 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > >> We wouldn't be talking about removing the original GA set - just adding > >> updated pkgs into the path. So you'd still have the number of pkgs -just > >> all in one repo, that you have to download all of the metadata for all of > >> the more often, despite that 15K of them don't CHANGE. > > > > I don't think that was actually made clear in the initial proposal. I'd > > been assuming that the proposal was _exactly_ to remove the GA set. > > Usually, when a newer package shows up in any given repository, we don't > > keep the previous version of the package, do we? So I assumed the > > proposal was expecting that behaviour for the combined repository. > > >From a QA standpoint I'd think you'd want at least one known-installable > set of pkgs. Since everything after the original GA set is a giant > questionmark. > > Not to mention that removing all the old pkgs would more or less make > deltarpms very difficult. I'm not saying I support the proposal, I don't, I think it's a waste of effort for no benefit. I was just clarifying the initial characterization. Actually I think the initial proposer _was_ expecting to remove initial packages when updates become available, because they keep saying stuff like 'only historians are interested in the GA packages'. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
