On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:24:49 +0200
Jan Zelený <jzeleny(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 9. 4. 2013 at 12:25:56, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:18:54 -0500
>
> Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 00:05:45 +0800,
> >
> > Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > >The current behaviour would be obtained by setting it to 1, and
> > >setting it to 2 would already be a positive change as it would
> > >allow downgrading a package if the update went wrong.
> >
> > I don't think that is really what you want either. The idea is to
> > keep recently obsoleted updates around, not 2 or 3 versions of
> > everything.
> >
> > The change has some other benefits. Reverting bad updates in
> > rawhide would be easier. You can use yum downgrade instead of
> > having to going look at koji and download builds. Dealing with
> > packages dropping out of repos when moving between test and
> > updates. The latter issue is especially bad with branched during
> > freezes.
>
> So - this is just an idea - and not necessarily a good one - but
> what about moving older pkgs which are not in the initial release
> repo into an updates-archive repo.
>
> We could leave the repo disabled by default and only keep 2 copies
> of any single pkg name in the repo at a time.
>
> That way in the best of all possible worlds you'd have at most 4
> copies of a pkg in total:
> 1 - in the base release 'everything' repo
> 1 - in updates
> 2 - in updates-archive
I'm not sure this solves the initial problem - downloading new
metadata every 6 hours or so ...
I wasn't trying to solve that problem. The problem I did solve was the
updates repodata growing forever if we keep more than one version of
the pkgs in there.
-sv