meta-repository idea (was Re: mplayer vs. xine)
Panu Matilainen
pmatilai at welho.com
Tue Feb 3 15:13:52 UTC 2004
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, seth vidal wrote:
>
> > Dunno, nobody ever complained apt having separate files for binary and
> > source indexes :) Not that I personally care about it either, I've enough
> > plenty enough bandwidth and would download the src.rpm stuff
> > anyway. Just a bit of wasted bandwidth for everybody to download those but
> > no big deal.
>
> What does the difference work out to? Have you compared them?
>
> like fc1 with srpms vs w/o.
For an RHL 9 based distro:
RPMS:
1579532 Feb 3 16:59 filelists.xml.gz
3245800 Feb 3 16:59 other.xml.gz
512172 Feb 3 16:59 primary.xml.gz
666 Feb 3 16:59 repomd.xml
SRPMS:
77725 Feb 3 17:00 filelists.xml.gz
1083911 Feb 3 17:00 other.xml.gz
213598 Feb 3 17:00 primary.xml.gz
666 Feb 3 17:00 repomd.xml
Whether the SRPMS part is big enough for "junk most users dont need" to
matter I don't know.
>
> > Ok, I thought it might have to do with that. OTOH there's a bz2 python
> > module in python 2.3 which is in FC2, which I think is the "target" for
> > this stuff anyway.
>
> but if you're running createrepo on a mirror you won't necessarily have
> that mirror running fc2 or python 2.3.
>
> Hell, I was reaching to think people would have python 2.2, rpm and
> libxml2
Oh I know.. having compiled rpm + apt-rpm on a Debian box just to be able
to put a repository there :)
- Panu -
More information about the devel
mailing list