Tobias Gerschner wrote:
>> Wouldn't be hard to fix, is on my todo++ list, but there's been zero
>> interest in using rpmrepo so far, hence its a low priority.
>> You know where http://launchpad.net/rpm blueprints are.
> OTOH switching to a format which is mainly driven by a community that does not seem keen to collaborate is not very pleasing either.
> Has anyone any links/ information about the reasons as to why repo-md has the format that it has today?
Think it went from the first extracted rpm headers (.hdr)
to XML metadata (xml.gz) to SQL metadata (.sqlite.bz2)...
Your best guess is http://createrepo.baseurl.org/ and
> Is there any interest to review this format and potentially come up with a new blueprint? While I am personally very interested in sorting this I can only see this work with input and support from multiple drivers which would then collaborate on this new format and actually use it. I don't just want to do it my way, but have an accepted, comfortable solution that is well engineered and has a good future with rpm5.
I'm pretty certain that whatever createrepo/repodata does
for a new format, it will Require yum and Conflict rpm5 ?
> Any thoughts? Is there an option/ solution I am missing?
There is the mixture of rpm headers and xml metadata
that urpmi is using, or using a rpmdb directly perhaps ?
But changing the "pkgid" (to not include the payload)
and adding partial downloads sounds like improvements...
Received on Fri Feb 25 14:01:57 2011