[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

sources.list brainstorm



Hi all,

[I'm not subscribed, please CC me if you want me to read your mail]

As a result of me filing #632438 (asking for mechanisms to get popcon to
exclude packages), I discovered that you can put options in the
sources.list lines, but they aren't documented (#632441). That led to a
brainstorm about a better sources.list format on #debian-devel. If you
were to consider a newer more readable and flexible format, please start
discussions on the debian-user and debian-devel lists to get more ideas.

I mentioned that if the client-side automatic mirror selection stuff was
to be added to apt, then a shakeup of the sources.list format might be
in order, depending on how it is implemented.

The first thing that came up was the format of the file itself. One
developer disliked the single-line format and thought an ini or
rfc822-like format would be better.

Having to list deb and deb-src lines with almost the same content wasn't
liked. Same for only being able to list one release/suite per entry.

Someone else wanted to be able to express priority/pinning stuff in the
sources.list.

I also looked at how YUM does it, some interesting options there:

http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/yum/sn-yum-maintenance.html

Here is an rfc822-like format of some example ideas for format and stuff
that could be added to it:

# Yay for the universal OS!!
Label: Debian
URL: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/
Suites: testing unstable
Components: main contrib non-free
Source: yes
Architectures: amd64 i386
Popcon: no
Keys: 6BE3C423 610B28B55CFCFE45EA1B563B3116BA5E9FFA69A3
Type: deb
Enabled: yes
Protect: yes
Priority: 900
Prefer-Mirror: http://ftp.au.debian.org/debian/

# Some hypothetical future where we can install RPMs using apt
Label: RHEL
URL: http://security.redhat.com/ 
Releases: rhel6 
Components: main
Source: no
Type: rpm
Enabled: no

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: