On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). > For what it's worth, I like "/etc/rpm.repos.d" as well. :) -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
