Boston FUDCon 2006
sundaram at redhat.com
Wed Nov 23 21:36:52 UTC 2005
>Well this is a decision I have been struggling with, and I would hope a
>steering committee would help with this. Because we aren't Core, and we
>aren't Extras, there is some risk using our packages, some cases where
>an update may go out that causes problems that aren't caught by normal
>QA. However there is the same risk w/ Extras and Core too. One
>argument is that it would be one less repo that is checked for each yum
>action (or each yum action after the cache timeout). It would also add
>load to the master download server. We have a large number of mirrors,
>however I'm not entirely pleased with the way that mirrorlists work in
>yum. Far too often a user in West USA may get handed a mirror in Russia
>or France or something.
I would like the rationales behind the decisions to be made transparent
for the community either way. If its about performance of yum, I see a
mention about "fastest mirror routine" support to yumex on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/173708. Yum has a fastestmirror plugin as
part yum-utils in Fedora Extras. Not sure how good that would be
include by default. Seth?
Also yum recently seems to have gotten better cache support.
Better mirror management on the server side seems to be on the plate too
as part of FAIP
>I guess the long/short of it is that the decision to enable/disable by
>default is up in the air. With Pup there is a pretty easy interface to
>enable/disable repositories so changing state shouldn't be that
Fedora Legacy users are probably server side. Pup doesnt usually help there.
>As it stands right now, I do believe I"m waiting for RH Legal to give go
>ahead to even ship a repo file that points to Legacy content. If they
>say no, everything above is rather moot.
More information about the marketing