Denis Leroy wrote:
Neal Becker wrote:
> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
>
>>IMHO, yum is behaving exactly as it should. When I disable a
>>repository, yum has no idea why I have done it, and should not disregard
>>my wishes and change anything about that repository. As for
>>repositories that no longer have configurations, I don't want yum making
>>any assumptions there, either. I have no problems going in and cleaning
>>out the cache manually if space becomes an issue. It would be easy
>>enough to create a cron job to do the job. If someone wants to create a
>>script to go along with yum-utils or to stand alone, I would see nothing
>>wrong with that. I'm sure that would be a welcomed idea. I also
>>wouldn't complain about a '--sanitize' option in yum, but the current
>>behavior is what I would expect and want.
>>
>
> Well, for the record, I disagree. Is there really any reason for
> disabling, except that the repo doesn't play nicely with others, so that
> I don't want
> it enabled by default? If so, why would I run clean all, and not want to
> clean it?
>
> The fact is, I have a couple of repos disabled by default, such as
> updates-testing. They had eaten lots of disk space. I did clean all. I
> certainly did not expect this behavior. If this is really the way we
> want it to act, please clearly document that we need to add
> --enablerepo=* to clean disabled repos.
+1. Only cleaning enabled repositories seems very counter intuitive.
I guess the question comes down to, what do I mean by "disabled"? According
to the proposed model, "disabled" means _everything_ is disabled. What I,
and I believe many others want, is disable installing.
Perhaps "disabled" should be split into multiple options? disable-install,
disable-clean, etc?