Denis Leroy wrote: > Neal Becker wrote: >> Patrick Barnes wrote: >> >> >>>IMHO, yum is behaving exactly as it should. When I disable a >>>repository, yum has no idea why I have done it, and should not disregard >>>my wishes and change anything about that repository. As for >>>repositories that no longer have configurations, I don't want yum making >>>any assumptions there, either. I have no problems going in and cleaning >>>out the cache manually if space becomes an issue. It would be easy >>>enough to create a cron job to do the job. If someone wants to create a >>>script to go along with yum-utils or to stand alone, I would see nothing >>>wrong with that. I'm sure that would be a welcomed idea. I also >>>wouldn't complain about a '--sanitize' option in yum, but the current >>>behavior is what I would expect and want. >>> >> >> Well, for the record, I disagree. Is there really any reason for >> disabling, except that the repo doesn't play nicely with others, so that >> I don't want >> it enabled by default? If so, why would I run clean all, and not want to >> clean it? >> >> The fact is, I have a couple of repos disabled by default, such as >> updates-testing. They had eaten lots of disk space. I did clean all. I >> certainly did not expect this behavior. If this is really the way we >> want it to act, please clearly document that we need to add >> --enablerepo=* to clean disabled repos. > > +1. Only cleaning enabled repositories seems very counter intuitive. > > > I guess the question comes down to, what do I mean by "disabled"? According to the proposed model, "disabled" means _everything_ is disabled. What I, and I believe many others want, is disable installing. Perhaps "disabled" should be split into multiple options? disable-install, disable-clean, etc? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
