On 3/13/19 8:41 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
That said, I think if we want to move the repo files now, we should
also consider making so package installed repo and GPG files are in
/usr/share and that admin additions/overrides can be stored in /etc.
Same goes for vars and other such stuff.
That's more
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:39 PM John M. Harris, Jr.
wrote:
>
> `rpm` does not care what repositories your system has available, it doesn't
> work with them directly. That name would make no sense.
I guess the rationale behind that was more of a "repositories of rpm
packages" than "repositories u
`rpm` does not care what repositories your system has available, it doesn't
work with them directly. That name would make no sense.
On March 15, 2019 6:31:40 AM EDT, "Samuel Rakitničan"
wrote:
>> If anything of the like, /etc/dnf.repos.d makes more sense. These
>repos are not
>> necessarily par
> Hi,
> I am curious whether we can move our repo files from
> /etc/yum.repos.d
> to
> /etc/distro.repos.d
>
> In Fedora 31 we are going to wipe away last left overs of YUM, so it really
> does not have sense to keep `yum.repos.d`.
>
> DNF for ages parse config files from:
> {"/etc/yum.repos
On 3/15/19 12:32 PM, Michal Domonkos wrote:
That said, if we should pick a different name today, "yum" seems like
the most sensible choice. While still far from ideal, it has
stickiness within the Fedora/RHEL community, and is a "trademark",
really.
Yesterday's Updater Modified
:-)
--
Robe
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:32 AM Samuel Rakitničan
wrote:
> Please don't tie the name with the particular software to avoid this issue in
> the future. If you must then I think rpm.repos.d is less likely to avoid this
> issue in the future.
+1
Just like a few others have mentioned in this thre
> If anything of the like, /etc/dnf.repos.d makes more sense. These repos are
> not
> necessarily part of the distro.
Please don't tie the name with the particular software to avoid this issue in
the future. If you must then I think rpm.repos.d is less likely to avoid this
issue in the future.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:56 AM Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> Renaming dnf to yum is IMHO the best option.
> I constantly use the wrong tool when switching between Fedora and Centos,
> and the painful "yum.repos.d" string issue (code + docs) would disappear.
Actually, we're planning [1] to rename the
On 3/13/19 6:10 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
It was discussed on this list last June. The renaming to DNF never
happened in RHEL/CentOS. It's Yum in RHEL 7 and (I hear) it will be Yum
in RHEL 8. Presumably the reason for this is that the sysadmins who
manage RHEL systems like continuity, dislike poi
Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> Why not /etc/dnf/repos.d and a symlink for /etc/yum.repos.d?
Please no, that will introduce it's own set of problems as well.
-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to deve
On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 13:38 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hi,
> I am curious whether we can move our repo files from
> /etc/yum.repos.d
> to
> /etc/distro.repos.d
>
> In Fedora 31 we are going to wipe away last left overs of YUM, so it really
> does not have sense to keep `yum.repos.d`.
>
>
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 08:51, Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> Also, I've heard rumours that dnf might get renamed back to yum in the
> future.
>
I just hope that dnf gets renamed to something easier. It doesn't
stick as good as yum, apt or pacman. Anything other than yum will be a
lot of work though.
Orc
If anything of the like, /etc/dnf.repos.d makes more sense. These repos are not
necessarily part of the distro.
On March 13, 2019 11:46:12 AM EDT, Theodore Papadopoulo
wrote:
>On 3/13/19 4:03 PM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 7:50 AM, Kalev Lember
>> wrote:
>>> Please
mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 7:50 AM, Kalev Lember
> wrote:
> > Also, I've heard rumours that dnf might get renamed back to yum in the
> > future.
>
> Do the dnf developers know about this rumor...?
In recent Fedora releases DNF has stopped complaining when it's invok
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I am curious whether we can move our repo files from
> /etc/yum.repos.d
> to
> /etc/distro.repos.d
Please, no. Sysadmins don't like having to change their habits, scripts
and documents for no benefit because somebody renamed something just for
the sake of renaming. Poin
On 3/13/19 4:03 PM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 7:50 AM, Kalev Lember
> wrote:
>> Please don't, it's just pointless renaming that invalidates all end user
>> documentation and makes it harder for other programs such as packagekit
>> and gnome-software that all need to ado
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:37 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 03. 19 v 13:50 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
> > Please don't, it's just pointless renaming that invalidates all end user
> > documentation and makes it harder for other programs such as packagekit
> > and gnome-software that all need to
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 7:50 AM, Kalev Lember
wrote:
Please don't, it's just pointless renaming that invalidates all end
user
documentation and makes it harder for other programs such as
packagekit
and gnome-software that all need to adopt for the new paths.
Handling a rename is not exactly
Le mer. 13 mars 2019 à 13:39, Miroslav Suchý a écrit :
>
> Hi,
> I am curious whether we can move our repo files from
> /etc/yum.repos.d
> to
> /etc/distro.repos.d
I don't see the point to "change" this directory for "pleasure" if it
doesn't come with more features.
Right now yum.repos.d shou
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 14:37, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 03. 19 v 13:50 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
> > ..makes it harder for other programs such as packagekit
> > and gnome-software that all need to adopt for the new paths.
> Not exactly true.
It's completely true, Kalev is spot on. GNOME Sof
Dne 13. 03. 19 v 13:50 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
> Please don't, it's just pointless renaming that invalidates all end user
> documentation and makes it harder for other programs such as packagekit
> and gnome-software that all need to adopt for the new paths.
Not exactly true.
When documentaion st
Dne 13. 03. 19 v 14:03 Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
> Why not /etc/dnf/repos.d and a symlink for /etc/yum.repos.d?
Currently DNF reads both of them. So you will end with duplicate repositories,
because DNF would see them twice.
Miroslav
___
devel maili
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:42 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:39 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am curious whether we can move our repo files from
> > /etc/yum.repos.d
> > to
> > /etc/distro.repos.d
Why not /etc/dnf/repos.d and a symlink for /etc/yum.repos.d?
>
On 3/13/19 13:38, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Hi,
I am curious whether we can move our repo files from
/etc/yum.repos.d
to
/etc/distro.repos.d
In Fedora 31 we are going to wipe away last left overs of YUM, so it really
does not have sense to keep `yum.repos.d`.
DNF for ages parse config files
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:39 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am curious whether we can move our repo files from
> /etc/yum.repos.d
> to
> /etc/distro.repos.d
>
> In Fedora 31 we are going to wipe away last left overs of YUM, so it really
> does not have sense to keep `yum.repos.d`.
>
> D
Hi,
I am curious whether we can move our repo files from
/etc/yum.repos.d
to
/etc/distro.repos.d
In Fedora 31 we are going to wipe away last left overs of YUM, so it really
does not have sense to keep `yum.repos.d`.
DNF for ages parse config files from:
{"/etc/yum.repos.d", "/etc/yum/repos
26 matches
Mail list logo
