On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:56:57PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Could we perhaps talk you into keeping the apt and yum config files > out of the atrpms package? Consider what would happen, if then someone updates apt/yum binaries to a binaries only version and suddenly he has no config files at all. Previously I had the config files in the binaries, but since ATrpms is the repo including configs for itself and another 10 repos (at least on RH9), config files were changes at a weekly rate to say the least. I followed Red Dieter's proposal to split off the config files mainly because users where complaining about redownloading apt for the 10th time solely for a oneliner in sources.list. That's why the config files are separate from the binaries and that's also why I need to make sure there _are_ config files around. Also note that the config files indeed contain any repo users have requested to be added and that was willing to be compatible with ATrpms or that was so by nature (e.g. kernel 2.6 and JPackage have nothing in common to raise any incompatibilities). Also the config files are marked as such as to not replace you home made configuration. BTW for apt/synaptic there is a mechanism to move configuration out of sources.list and create a policy that for example an empty sources.list (or none) is shipped for adding new repos (thanks to Panu for his explanations on synaptic's support of this). Yum, which is in the distribution still lacks such a modularization, as well as up2date. I believe that these two should follow apt's example. This would ease creating a policy of drop-in repo configs in the spirit of Rex Dieter's suggestion some moths ago. Until such a policy is established and supported by the tools ATrpms policy is to be open towards any repository, and to provide a single catch-them-all configuration. -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpquwJ3MLGqV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
