Jeff Spaleta (jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx) said: > 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? See http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/fedora-release/?root=fedora - this has been changed around some in the past couple of days. Bill -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
