On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, seth vidal wrote: > > I think that's the least that needs to be done. As you say it is > > easily fixable, and also until then it can be taken care of > > server-side (where the question arises, what does the new repodata > > format really buy us other than being xml? I was under the impression > > that all depsolvers, rpm and deb and its cat were going to use it, > > turns out it's yum and up2date only). > > Do you think that's the way I wanted it? no.The point of the metadata > format was to remove the duplicate implementations of the same data. But > sometimes you end up that not everyone wants to do any work to implement > the functionality in their program. What more can be done to convince > them to do that? > > So it's not a failing of the format, not as far as I've been told. Only apt is not using the new metadata format, so all-in-all it has been very succesful. My only concern is that older distributions have been ignored. (yum 2.0, apt and up2date) And even when apt is fixed, I still need to carry old-yum style metadata support (even though yum-arch is complaining and failing to understand that it is *NOT* obsolete) as long as we have yum 2.0 and up2date around in its current form on RHEL, RH, FC1 and FC2. (everything except FC3 :)) Fixing createrepo to provide old-yum metadata would be an acceptable workaround from the repository maintainer POV. Trying to get rid of repository maintainers is an alternative too :) -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
