On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 20:54 +1000, Dan Callaghan wrote: > Excerpts from Tom Hughes's message of 2016-05-12 09:15 +01:00: > > > > On 12/05/16 09:07, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > > > > > Shouldn't that be /usr/lib/distro.repos.d (for > > > distribution-provided > > > data) with usual rules for overriding/masking in > > > /etc/distro.repos.d (for > > > local administrator)? > > Well equally isn't the "distro." prefix all wrong if it includes > > things other than distribution provided repositories... > Agreed... if end users and third-party repos are expected to also put > their configs into this directory, then having "distro" in the name > doesn't really make sense. > > If the objection to yum.repos.d is that they are not just "yum repos" > anymore, since clients other than yum can consume them -- then maybe > we can think of them as "yum-formatted package repos" (that is, > "repositories of RPM packages with metadata in the format originated > by yum").
Agreed. This change seems like a lot of churn (having to preserve compatibility, having to change yum, creating tons out of date documentation, ...) for too little actual benefit. The "Benefit to Fedora" section just isn't convincing: > The former default directory path implies that the repositories are > consumable by Yum only, which is not true. This general path name > would help us define repository configuration path that would not be > bound to a specific package manager name and so be more portable > among package managers. -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
