1 Big repo vs multiple small ones

Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano at redhat.com
Wed Mar 26 18:44:26 UTC 2014

On 03/26/2014 06:03 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 03/18/2014 04:22 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>> Today was discussed whether we want one big repo or multiple small ones
>>> [1]. Both have their pros and cons, but multiple small ones would solve
>>> most of open questions [2].
>>> I'd like to see discussion and later votes here, because on meetings are
>>> usually only five members of our SIG.
>> I tried to look at both options from user POV and having more little
>> repos seems to me like a better option, since it would allow him to
>> locate the necessary coprs easily, but he'd have to install the packages
>> in the next step (unless dnf/yum/other tool would be able to do it in
>> one step).
> I talked to Mirek and it seems current support in DNF mostly allows this
> collections of Copr repositories. So we are almost there - what Mirek
> told me, it would require week, two weeks to implement it (of course, if
> someone would be interested in this work ;-). The same support could be
> added to WS Software Installer - I know Hughsie was thinking about it. Only
> YUM will be left out. The question how big issue is it? DNF as default
> targets F22 but I expect we should be able to find solution for it too.
> But the whole idea is - don't reinvent wheel, use what we almost have,
> try it in smaller scale. If it works, extend it, if not - there's also
> possibility to try another round later.
> Jaroslav
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
I have great idea after discussion with Stano on IRC. Why don't we use 
only dnf for enablement of Playground repo? Not so many people will be 
interested in Playground and they are surely brave enough to install 
even dnf :)


More information about the env-and-stacks mailing list