Shawn Walker <[email protected]> writes: > It is intentional that the publisher is named 'opensolaris.org', the > publisher name isn't intended to reflect which repository you are > currently using for a given publisher. > > For example, the publisher could be 'opensolaris.org', but you might > be getting the packages from 'http://internal.company.mirror/'. Does > that make sense?
At first ...yes I thougt so... but: How would you switch repos inside the publisher opensolaris.org The dialog appears to require a name. So to add one, you'd name it opensolaris.org with a different URI? So I'd have two repos named opensolaris.org. The indicator on the right doesn't appear to indicate which uri is involved. Somehow having two different URI for repos under the same name does not look like it could be anything but confusing. I'd have thought the naming would be the users way to keep track of what repo was selected, not which outfit provides the software in it. > The publisher name is the 'identity' of the organisation or individual > providing the software. And in the case I'm describing you'd have both a company mirror and the actual opensolaris dev repo under the same name... with no way to know which is being used by viewing the right hand indicator... Of course you could look under File/repo managment... but then what use is the right hand indicator. In fact the name is prompted for under the heading of repo management not publisher management so would seem to be aimed at keeping track of repos not publishers. There for the naming should be about the repo not the outfit providing software. At least those are a few thoughts about it. > In the future, we plan on adding duplicate checks to prevent the > addition of multiple publishers that use the same repository URIs to > prevent this from happening among other things. Sounds good. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
