On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, seth vidal wrote:
> I think that's the least that needs to be done. As you say
it is
> easily fixable, and also until then it can be taken care of
> server-side (where the question arises, what does the new repodata
> format really buy us other than being xml? I was under the impression
> that all depsolvers, rpm and deb and its cat were going to use it,
> turns out it's yum and up2date only).
Do you think that's the way I wanted it? no.The point of the metadata
format was to remove the duplicate implementations of the same data. But
sometimes you end up that not everyone wants to do any work to implement
the functionality in their program. What more can be done to convince
them to do that?
So it's not a failing of the format, not as far as I've been told.
Only apt is not using the new metadata format, so all-in-all it has been
very succesful. My only concern is that older distributions have been
ignored. (yum 2.0, apt and up2date)
And even when apt is fixed, I still need to carry old-yum style metadata
support (even though yum-arch is complaining and failing to understand
that it is *NOT* obsolete) as long as we have yum 2.0 and up2date around
in its current form on RHEL, RH, FC1 and FC2. (everything except FC3 :))
Fixing createrepo to provide old-yum metadata would be an acceptable
workaround from the repository maintainer POV. Trying to get rid of
repository maintainers is an alternative too :)
-- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com,
http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]