Re: adding different compression types to createrepo

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:54, James Antill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  It's nice that you've done work internally to be interoperable, we've
> done the same thing with yum. It'd be much nicer if you shared more of
> the upstream burden :).
>

Ok, If more distributions shared the upstream burden, it'd be nice.
But I'm still seeing repomd geared toward yum and fedora. You're not taking into
consideration everyone's needs as well! You call repomd and rpm an
open-source project
where everyone can help, I see a Red Hat project with a dictatorship. Right now,
rpm5 sounds much more open source.

>
>  How is it yum/Fedora specific? Zypper is now the only major program
> which doesn't understand sqlite for primary/filelists/other. And, as
> I've said explicitly before, XML support isn't going to be removed
> anytime soon (although I wouldn't be shocked if --database-only because
> _default_ within the next 12 months).

Answer that yourself. Think about it. We'll give you some time.

>
>  And, yes, if you assume that you are going to take a significant
> conversion hit everytime the repodata changes ... then it probably
> doesn't matter much if that conversion is from XML or sqlite.
>  But, with my yum hat on, I don't make that assumption and I see no good
> reason to do so. It often requires more work, not having a perfect
> custom local repo. format, but that's life. And from the point of view
> of using what the repodata provides, XML is much slower.
>

For yum. Again, we're taking this from a "yum is the standard and so
is red hat's way"
XML is slower to YUM. Not some other tools like zypper.

Think about this: What if every distribution switched to rpm5? Not
likely, but what if they did?
I've seen rpm5 packages popping up everywhere (surprising number, and
it's growing).
Many distributions are already moving over to rpm5. Be wise about decisions.

-- 
later, Robert Xu