On 05/17/2016 02:14 PM, Honza Šilhan wrote:
there are a lot of good suggestions about the path name in the discussion. `/etc/distro.repos.d` probably wasn't the best chosen path so we've changed it to `/etc/repos.d` in the proposal. Moreover I've mentioned there possible path name alternatives like /etc/software.repos.d, /etc/vendors.repos.d, /etc/rpm.repos.d, /etc/rpm-md.repos.d, /etc/system.repos.d. The type of the metadata format could be defined by `type` option in the file itself like Suse does so we don't need to have any specifier before `repos.d`.
You do realize that if you are going the "too generic route of repos.d" and change it to /usr/lib/repos.d ( as opposed to /usr/lib/rpm.repos.d ) then you need to add distinction in file name ending that might be used ( <foo>- <packagemanager>.conf ) or use a sub directory within that directory like repos.d/rpm which would contain foo.repo or something similar or have all package manager to use the same configuration file format for all package managers ( rpm,maven, npm, rubygems etc ) that migt end up using that "too generic" repos.d directory directly.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
