Oops, I accidentally replied to Warren only, shorter version inline
below. (A list copy is fine BTW.)
On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 19:00 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Warren Togami wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> FWIW, I would like to see the complete apt'table (pre-)Extras SRPMS
>> repos available at fedora.us and its mirrors. The reasons have been
>> outlined in this thread.
> I have to admit that I don't understand if there is any purpose in this.
> "apt-get source" is only a convenience but otherwise is not very useful.
Well, 'apt-get install foobar' is only a convenience as well, you could
just as well manually locate latest version of, download and install with
rpm. I find it a major pain in the ass to manually locate the latest
version of a given src.rpm when apt (or any similar tool) can do it
automatically for you.
With the current cvs.fedora.redhat.com
setup, that's as trivial as
typing "cvs up ; make srpm" in the correct package's CVS working dir.
That works well enough for me.
> "apt-get build-dep" does not need SRPMS at all except
the local SRPM, which
> you already have locally because you want to build it. Is there some aspect
> of this that I am failing to see? I fail to see the "need" in this.
You have to manually locate and download the SRPM first, and then use
# apt-get build-dep /path/to/srpms/foobar-1.2-1.src.rpm
compared to just
# apt-get build-dep foobar
It IS a much more convenient for us who deal with SRPMS a lot. Because the
lack of the SRPMS I keep a local apt-enabled mirror of FC to be able to
access the SRPMS without all the manual work, which feels somewhat
ridiculous to me.
Actually, I'm not personally that interested in the actual SRPMs, my
feeble "lobbying" comment above was pretty much inaccurate. But I would
_really_ like "apt-get build-dep" to work, not only for Extras, but
core, updates, and updates-testing too. All that's required for it are
the full apt source indexes; no actual SRPMs need to be available in
> From the perspective of mirror administrators it is somewhat
painful to host
> redundant RPMS. I personally don't have the disk space to do this forever
> with all distributions.
> I suppose it is tolerable to do only SRPMS.extras of the latest stable
> distribution. When FC4 happens, I will wipe the 3 SRPMS.extras. Is this
> acceptable? I will however not add the base and updates SRPMS.
That'd be a definite improvement over not having the SRPMS at all.
Agreed, but I think for my needs, fedora.us hosting the full apt source
indexes for all repo components and no SRPMs at all would be even better
compromise. Others may have different requirements though.