On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:44 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:39 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:33 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > When we switched around how the repos worked in the YumBase object, the > > > handling of delete wasn't adjusted accordingly. We should definitely be > > > resetting to a clean RepoStorage() object rather than setting to None. > > > But then should we also set it back up with the repos from the config? > > > > > > Patch doing so attached, could also be convinced that callers need to > > > explicitly reset repos from config if they want it. Other opinions? > > > > > > > shouldn't be setting them back up that way - b/c we won't always be > > using the config repos. an example - a caller of yum which sets up the > > repos, does whatever, shuts everything back down and then wants to run > > again using the same yum base object with repos it made on its own. > > The thing that's at least a little weird is that you don't want to > delete the repos without deleting the config. Because when you > initially get the repos, we make sure the config is setup (which ends up > calling getReposFromConfig). But since your config object will still > exist, that won't implicitly happen after deleting the repos. > > That said, I'm entirely okay with having del self._repos; > self.getReposFromConfig(). So I'll go ahead and commit that in a few >
I'm just thinking as we have more and more callers doing things with repos that don't involve whatever happens to be in /etc/yum/repos.d that having the implicit getReposFromConfig() will be annoying. -sv _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
