On Saturday 26 August 2006 19:25, Andreas Hanke wrote:
> jdd schrieb:
> > but why couldn't you have _one_
> > repository and _several_ metadata files?
why not?
it looks like you can have as much primary's, other, filelists etc as you
want.
http://linux.duke.edu/metadata/repo";>
...
..
.
jdd schrieb:
> but why couldn't you have _one_
> repository and _several_ metadata files?
That's not possible with rpm-md.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
forget my mail if it's stupid, but why couldn't you have
_one_ repository and _several_ metadata files? clients only
parse metadata file?
jdd
--
http://www.dodin.net
http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html
http://lucien.dodin.net
http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_phot
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Andreas Hanke wrote:
Andreas Hanke schrieb:
- Separate repositories for source packages - bad idea IMHO.
Why do you think this is a bad idea ?
Because they would be harder to find, resulting in fake GPL violation
discussions on this list :-(
Another point to con
Andreas Hanke schrieb:
>>> - Separate repositories for source packages - bad idea IMHO.
>>
>> Why do you think this is a bad idea ?
>
> Because they would be harder to find, resulting in fake GPL violation
> discussions on this list :-(
Another point to consider: If it becomes possible to mirror
* Andreas Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Aug 25. 2006 16:24]:
> Hi,
>
> Klaus Kaempf schrieb:
> >> - Separate repositories per architecture - not possible because SUSE
> >> repositories have always been multiarch.
> >
> > It not impossible, but needs extra work. Currently its also nice to
> > publish
Hi,
Klaus Kaempf schrieb:
>> - Separate repositories per architecture - not possible because SUSE
>> repositories have always been multiarch.
>
> It not impossible, but needs extra work. Currently its also nice to
> publish only one repo URL without the need to distinguish between
> different arc
* Andreas Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Aug 25. 2006 15:24]:
[...]
> 22000 total packages in a SINGLE repository.
>
> Fedora:
>
> 2200 packages in the repository most people are interested in (i586
> binary + noarch, no debuginfo, no source, no other architectures).
>
> 22000/2200 is a factor of 10
Andreas Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> This makes me seriously doubt that rpm-md is designed or even suitable
> for such huge repositories. It's not surprising that parsing this beast
> is slow, even with a fast parser. It also makes me doubt that improving
> the parser is the only wa
Hi,
Joerg Mayer schrieb:
> OK, so you are proposing a *workaround* for a known and very severe
> problem. Especially with factory, we should *not* concentrate on
> workaround but on *fixes*! So as long as factory is a development
> branch, this *should not* be done.
Joerg, this is a valid point i
Peter Czanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> Related question: do you know anything about when fixes introduced here:
> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201164 will hit the factory
> repository? Installer files are still from 18th August, and thus
> severely broken...
With the ne
Andreas Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> For Factory, the ratio of people who need them is probably larger than
> for a released version. The proposal was primarily intended for the
> released versions. OK, now we have it for Factory, too.
You have it for factory first ;-) Future repo
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 10:45:56AM +0200, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
> Basicaly two reasons:
>
> 1. Mirrors can skip the debuginfo packages, without an exclude rule and
>without to "break" the repository meta data.
>
> 2. The installers have less meta data to handle by default (when you ignore
Am Friday 25 August 2006 04:14 schrieb Robert Schiele:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:01:14PM +0200, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > on popular request, we separated the debuginfo packages from Factory into
> > a separated repository.
>
> I wonder why I didn't catch a single one of these "pop
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:54:18AM +0200, Andreas Hanke wrote:
> Someone has to parse all this stuff. I mean, the metadata. It is well
> known that zypp parses the repository metadata slowly. It has already
> become faster and it will become even better, but it's still slow.
>
> And it's not just
Hello,
Adrian Schröter írta:
> on popular request, we separated the debuginfo packages from Factory into a
> separated repository.
>
Thanks, this was a very good idea. Finally I don't need to use --exclude
in rsync in my mirror scripts, and I hope, it will significantly
decrease the RAM and CP
Andreas Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And it's not just zypp. Yum, with the new(!) C metadata parser written
> by Tambet Ingo, needs half a minute to parse primary.xml and again half
> a minute to parse filelists.xml on my laptop. I don't even want to know
> how slow it would be with the old
Hi,
Robert Schiele schrieb:
> But what was the _reason_ for the debuginfo split? Just that some people
> wanted to have it without having a reason?
this was my proposal and is therefore my "fault".
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=197823
So I'd like to defend myself.
There are curr
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:01:14PM +0200, Adrian Schroeter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on popular request, we separated the debuginfo packages from Factory into a
> separated repository.
I wonder why I didn't catch a single one of these "popular requests" on this
mailing list.
> We will have SL-OSS-Factor
Hi,
on popular request, we separated the debuginfo packages from Factory into a
separated repository.
We will have SL-OSS-Factory and SL-OSS-Factory-debug directories with the next
sync.
Users of the opensuse-full or opensuse-full-with-factory modules do not have
to change anything.
I hope t
20 matches
Mail list logo
