On 2/16/06, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Of course the problem with these has been that the SRPM repositories > haven't really existed at all (in FC4 and earlier), never mind being set > up by default. Where is Core and Extras policy stand on how the repo metadata for SRPM is going to be handled now? is repodata for SRPM split off in its own repodata structure that requires additional repo entries? Last time a look..awhile ago... it seemed to be handled inconsistently across base and updates-released and extras for fc4. Is there going to be a consistent handling across base,updates,extras for fc5? Is there a need for something like an fedora-release-srpm package to provide supplimental yum repo configurations to add srpms back into repository calculations for base,updates and extras those who want it? -jef -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
