On Mon, 12 May 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Dag Wieers wrote:
In any case, stating that the RPMforge metadata is corrupt is an
oversimplification of the problem. It is either doing it like we do (and
support apt) or not generate any metadata at all. Or we can dismiss this
for a few years (like the past couple of years) and the problem will
resolve itself... -sigh-
I completely fail to see why this is.
Is apt unable to look for metadata in a different location than yum ? or
are we unable to generate two sets of metadata, one tht works for apt
and another that works for yum ?
Also, something to keep in mind is that less than 2% of the userbase use
a package manager other than yum to access rpmforge repos ( based on a
15 day log file sample ). Surely the 98% that do use yum should not need
to put up with apt's issues.
The original repomd format is not designed for RPM < 4.2.1 because it does
not understand an RPM without an epoch. Createrepo was patched to foresee
this even though the DTD was never changed to accomodate this. (createrepo
-n)
As a result this change allowed us to use apt with repomd metadata. Yum
however was never changed to understand it and bails out on it. Seth
thinks this is perfectly fine behaviour.
So either I do not provide repomd metadata, or I provide the one I provide
now. Nobody complained, there is nothing wrong with it except if you
_want_ to use repomd format with yum on RH9 or older.
Or in the case of this bugreport someone who wants to use the RH9
repository with his FC9 distribution. *sigh*
--
-- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
