On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:30:13PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 01. 04. 20 10:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:31:38AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >>I sent out the V2 version of the Change on Friday and then promptly
> >>managed to injure myself and be away from email until today. I've read
> >>through the email threads again this morning and I decided that,
> >>rather than try to address them one by one, I'd try again with a V3
> >>that hopefully answers some of the repeated questions and concerns on
> >>that list.
> >
> >>To enable ELN (once the repository is composed):
> >>
> >>$ dnf install fedora-repos-eln
> >>$ dnf distro-sync
> >
> >I don't see this part explained. Those additional packages will haves
> >NEVRAs always lower than rawhide packages (".eln" <
".fc33".). So this
> >distro-sync will be a noop?
>
> A wild guess: If that repo has lower "cost", will distro-sync prefer
> packages with lower EVR because they come form that repo?
I don't think so: "cost — ... It is useful to make the library prefer
on-disk repositories to remote ones."
But there's a "priority" option: "If there is more than one candidate
package for a particular operation, the one from a repo with the
lowest priority value is picked, possibly despite being less
convenient otherwise (e.g. by being a lower version)."
This should do the trick. The mechanism should be described in the
Change page too.
(Note: I had a sense of deja-vu, because 'priority' was already
discussed in the context of this Change, but it was koji priority for
scheduling tasks, not package installation.)
Right, the intent here is to have the fedora-repos-eln subpackage
provide a repo at priority level 98 (default being 99, lower numbers
"win"). I left it out because generally Change Proposals aren't
required to document every minor implementation detail.