On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:40:49AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:30:13PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 01. 04. 20 10:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:31:38AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > >>I sent out the V2 version of the Change on Friday and then promptly
> > > >>managed to injure myself and be away from email until today. I've read
> > > >>through the email threads again this morning and I decided that,
> > > >>rather than try to address them one by one, I'd try again with a V3
> > > >>that hopefully answers some of the repeated questions and concerns on
> > > >>that list.
> > > >
> > > >>To enable ELN (once the repository is composed):
> > > >>
> > > >>$ dnf install fedora-repos-eln
> > > >>$ dnf distro-sync
> > > >
> > > >I don't see this part explained. Those additional packages will haves
> > > >NEVRAs always lower than rawhide packages (".eln" < ".fc33".). So this
> > > >distro-sync will be a noop?
> > >
> > > A wild guess: If that repo has lower "cost", will distro-sync prefer
> > > packages with lower EVR because they come form that repo?
> >
> > I don't think so: "cost — ... It is useful to make the library prefer
> > on-disk repositories to remote ones."
> >
> > But there's a "priority" option: "If there is more than one candidate
> > package for a particular operation, the one from a repo with the
> > lowest priority value is picked, possibly despite being less
> > convenient otherwise (e.g. by being a lower version)."
> >
> > This should do the trick. The mechanism should be described in the
> > Change page too.
> >
> > (Note: I had a sense of deja-vu, because 'priority' was already
> > discussed in the context of this Change, but it was koji priority for
> > scheduling tasks, not package installation.)
>
>
> Right, the intent here is to have the fedora-repos-eln subpackage
> provide a repo at priority level 98 (default being 99, lower numbers
> "win"). I left it out because generally Change Proposals aren't
> required to document every minor implementation detail.
It's not a minor implementation detail. The subject of priority came
up before in the thread where people were wondering about version
ordering. What priority level will be used is indeed something that
doesn't need to appear in the change page, but the general approach
should IMO appear there.
By providing an overview of implementation choices you make it
possible for people to think about various corner cases and possibly
find issues that that otherwise could only discover once the
implementation is done and it's much harder to change stuff.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
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
