repodata size

Orion Poplawski orion at
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
Boulder, CO 80301    

More information about the devel mailing list