Remove some legacy stuff that's no longer relevant from .discinfo/.treeinfo
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:03 -0500, Elliot Peele wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 10:39 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:30 +0100, Joel Andres Granados wrote:
> > > Why remove package dir from the treeinfo info? better. Why remove
> > > the info pointing to the package dirs? In fedora where the only
> > > package dir is Packages its a little redundant to have this info in
> > > the treeinfo file. but in other spins, where you might want to
> > > separate your repos into logical sections (RHEL) it might not work as
> > > well. The buildinstall process itself does not need this information
> > > because it just needs the anaconda-runtime package to build (AFAICT),
> > > but it would be good to be able to put a list of "package dirs" into
> > > the treeinfo file to reflect the stage of the tree.
> > > I would leave this change but put in some type of probing logic in
> > > treeinfo so as to find all the dirs that contain repositories (a valid
> > > repodata file) and put it in the treeinfo file.
> > The package dir stuff is related to product path. In the day (today)
> > where everything is dependent on having repodata available, the
> > product/package path as it used to be is just no longer relevant. Even
> > for products which have multiple sets of repodata on the discs.
> Not everything requires repodata, conary for instance. The conary
> backend makes use of the product/package path.
... and you have your own scripts which build images, etc as well as a
whole backend. Different backends *can* depend on different things
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list