On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:24:49 +0200 Jan Zelený <jzeleny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9. 4. 2013 at 12:25:56, seth vidal wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:18:54 -0500 > > > > Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 00:05:45 +0800, > > > > > > Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >The current behaviour would be obtained by setting it to 1, and > > > >setting it to 2 would already be a positive change as it would > > > >allow downgrading a package if the update went wrong. > > > > > > I don't think that is really what you want either. The idea is to > > > keep recently obsoleted updates around, not 2 or 3 versions of > > > everything. > > > > > > The change has some other benefits. Reverting bad updates in > > > rawhide would be easier. You can use yum downgrade instead of > > > having to going look at koji and download builds. Dealing with > > > packages dropping out of repos when moving between test and > > > updates. The latter issue is especially bad with branched during > > > freezes. > > > > So - this is just an idea - and not necessarily a good one - but > > what about moving older pkgs which are not in the initial release > > repo into an updates-archive repo. > > > > We could leave the repo disabled by default and only keep 2 copies > > of any single pkg name in the repo at a time. > > > > That way in the best of all possible worlds you'd have at most 4 > > copies of a pkg in total: > > 1 - in the base release 'everything' repo > > 1 - in updates > > 2 - in updates-archive > > I'm not sure this solves the initial problem - downloading new > metadata every 6 hours or so ... I wasn't trying to solve that problem. The problem I did solve was the updates repodata growing forever if we keep more than one version of the pkgs in there. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
