On 05/12/2016 07:46 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 05/12/2016 07:14 AM, Parag Nemade wrote: >>> >>> I will suggest /etc/package.repos.d that way we can be more neutral in >>> having repos directory using various different packaging formats. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Parag. >> >> But we're not neutral, are we? These tools currently only handle "yum" style >> repositories of rpm packages. >> > > Nothing says that in the future, we couldn't handle other kinds. > Fundamentally, libsolv can process rpm-md/yum, susetags/yast2, hdlist2 > (mdk), and helix repos. And those are just the RPM repo formats. > libsolv can handle deb/apt, arch repos, and Haiku repos. We don't > really care too much about stuff other than rpm-md for now, but I > don't see why that couldn't change in the future. Even if we could, I don't think it would be a good idea to have a single drop-directory for all of them. That's introducing too much complexity on the behalf of the tools that have to parse them. So I think we should keep the directory limited to files that share a parser. I'm strongly in favor of the "rpm.repos.d" proposal, FWIW. (I agree that "distro.repos.d" is a misnomer, particularly since we will be supporting third-party repositories).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
