On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, at 7:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 12:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Samuel Sieb wrote: > > > > > On 11/10/19 1:52 PM, Neal Becker wrote: > > > > Well it does work if you do > > > > > > > > dnf --disablerepo=rpmfusion-free,rpmfusion-nonfree download -- > > > > enablerepo=rawhide --source mercurial > > > > > > > > But that is not exactly obvious, so I think it's something dnf could > > > > handle better (I hesitate to call it a bug). > > > > > > Wow, that is very non-obvious. > > > > How is it non-obvious? --source enables the source repositories > > corresponding to the binary repositories you have enabled, so if you don't > > want it to enable rpmfusion-free-source, you have to disable the > > rpmfusion-free (not rpmfusion-free-source) repository. Sounds quite obvious > > to me. > > But the user's intent is clear and the code almost certainly *could* > interpret it, it just doesn't right now. All it has to do is (re- > )consider the repo(s) that were disabled via user config *after* the > "infer the source repos to enable from the enabled binary repos" flow > has happened. I'd call it a bug, or at least a reasonable feature > request. I agree it's s feature request. It's a case of "I recognize the correct answer when it's shown to me"... after seeing this thread, it's obvious that/why/how it works, but I wouldn't have necessarily thought of it myself. V/r, James Cassell _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
