repodata size
Orion Poplawski
orion at cora.nwra.com
Sat Oct 10 02:09:57 UTC 2015
On 10/09/2015 05:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> Perhaps every product should produce a os/{repodata,Packages} directory as
>> well as an updates/VERSION/PRODUCT/ tree with .
>
> Please no! Let's not fragment Fedora even more than it already is with those
> "products".
>
> * Would packages belonging to multiple products (kernel, glibc, glib2,
> systemd, NetworkManager etc.) be copied into each of those repositories?
yes, via hard links
> * Where would packages that belong to a non-"product" spin (e.g. KDE) go in
> that plan? Into Workstation? Into a "nonproduct" dumping ground? Neither
> is really an ideal situation. If neither, then we are actually talking
> about a repository per spin, which means a dozen repositories with
> significant overlap.
Well, that's essentially what we have now with the Everything repo and
the whole "updates" repo.
> * And what about niche packages not clearly associated to any "product"?
> Would those also end up in a "nonproduct" dumping ground that is not
> enabled by default on any "product"?
>
> I think there is a lot of value in having a common repository that ensures
> interoperability to the maximum possible extent. Even Ubuntu with their
> separately marketed products (Kubuntu even being released by a separate
> company these days) draws from a shared repository. Let's not throw this
> away.
I'm not suggesting getting rid of the the everything and full updates
repos. But maybe some focused products would benefit from a smaller
repo set. I'm also just tossing out the idea - I personally don't have
any need for it.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
More information about the devel
mailing list