On 12/03/2009 08:20 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 00:32 -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.
Well, if we're talking about removing them from Fedora/ but leaving
them in Everything/ (am I understanding the current form of the proposal
correctly?), then it's not really significantly more difficult,
but it is one more process that needs modification in order to enact
such a plan.
--
Peter
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
-- Einstein
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
