On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 19:47, Olivier Thauvin <nanar...@nanardon.zarb.org> wrote: [...] > So, question and my own POV about this: > 1) /etc/product.id > * I don't like this file, I think it is redundant with > /etc/mandriva-release
It appeared for several reasons, in order to have a consistent scheme to identify several Mandriva products: an ISO release, a specific media, a set of media, a physical product, etc. It used to be spec'ed, but not properly reviewed, neither strongly/fully implemented. See http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/product_id (it never left the draft stage actually). It could have been only an int, or a hash string, putted against a database to get a human readable label, but that would be then, less human readable in the first place. > * Why "basic" and not "Free" since it is the "product" flag ? Dunno > * Notice "cooker" does not appear in this file It could. But here, provided it's a stable release, "cooker" is not supposed to appear. Given the new situation, I suggest to use a /etc/release file, somehow like the /etc/mandriva-release file, but being strongly structured (/etc/mandriva-release wasn't, in the long run), so we can have at least: - product name (Mageia) - version - arch - branch (or something stating the unstable/stable release state) - build number (in case of automated builds, someday). with mandatory ones being product name, version and arch. > [...] > 3) The content > [...] > * Do we need specific line for update since now distribution include > everything If we happen to have mirrors that only mirror an update tree? > * Do we keep this format ? > > Keeping this format is more simple, just changing the line specifiying > basis url in URPMI. > By changing the the format we can add features, make it clearer, etc... > But changing format to what ? XML ? YAML ? CSV ? something worst ? :) > Changes can done later. It's not an optimal format, but it looks simple and good enough. What would be needed to extend/change it? Romain