New repository configuration ponderings
Dag Wieers
dag at wieers.com
Tue May 30 11:32:27 PDT 2006
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Most people which are ranting against xml only rant at it because they
> are used to using M$-ish config files (similar to yum's), or because
> they don't want packages to ever change and to stick to "old time
> practice forever", no matter how broken it is.
Most people which are ranting in favor of xml ignore the people that
prefer simple M$-ish style config files.
BTW the M$-ish style config files are native to python and just easy to
implement (and easy on the eyes for users).
> > Oh and btw, all this has little to do with the original proposal of
> > making repository configuration use apt configuration engine instead of
> > using another cumbersome and very limited file format (sources.list).
>
> Yes, that's another issue. I never understood why sources.list (and
> vendors.list) applies a different file format than apt.conf, rsp. why
> sources.list aren't treated as #include files to apt.conf.
Well, I've been wondering by many other decisions that the apt-developers
made so I'm no longer surprised. In fact I think apt was being developed
by a different team every 2 weeks. :)
(btw pinning was also a missed opportunity)
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
More information about the Apt-Rpm
mailing list