[Fedora-livecd-list] SRPMS for installed RPMs?

[Jeremy Katz]

On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 11:22 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:51:54 -0400
> Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:
> > My first question would be "why does it matter?"  Why not just have
> > more repos listed and if you're doing something with sources, you
> > deal with the repos and have your arches set to src as opposed to
> > "binary" arches. Sure, it's more metadata, but at the end, you're
> > going to end up churning through it all anyway, so I don't know that
> > it's that large of a cost really
> 
> Right now?  Because yum throws out anything that doesn't match the
> compat arch list when getting package listings.  So you get your
> package listings from your enabled repos, and it throws out all the
> source.  There doesn't seem to be a good way to 'reset' the object to
> allow you to bring back in the source packages.

If you know you're going to be using sources initially, you could
include src in your arch list.  And then do filtering later.  

> Now you're going to say "fix it in yum instead" and that's fine, that's
> a reasonable answer.  May not be an easy task either.
> 
> We could make it not throw out those packages and make consumers of
> _getSacks do the filtering on their own.

This seems like it's probably the best approach just from 2 seconds
worth of thinking about it.

> We could try to get yum objects to be able to 'reset' themselves.

How is a reset different, though, than just creating a new object?

> We can do the somewhat status quo of Pungi and just create a new yum
> object, add all the repos again, and do a _getSacks where the archlist
> is 'src'.
> 
> Not sure what the best strategy is.  I suppose "working around" it in
> pykickstart isn't the best.

Yeah, it just feels like it's enforcing things which really don't make a
difference for the end-user

Jeremy