I'm not really inclined to follow this direction to it's conclusion, which would be using a different version of createrepo for each updates repo we compose, including EPEL once we get there. That'd be EL4, 5, F9, F10, and F11 versions all in play, or various combos depending on feature sets. We'd have to use versions compatible with the GA releases of each of those distributions.

Luke, what are your thoughts?

That's not true, createrepo is very backward compatible ... so we could use the latest released Fedora to generate all of them (if we needed something higher than what is in RHEL/EPEL at that time). Thus. currently Fedora 9's version of createrepo could be used for everything.

The other option is to log an RFE to get group_gz support in the RHEL-5 version ... or, I guess, wait for RHEL-6 ... but both those options require much longer rollouts than we'd like, I'd think.

This will also pop up again when we want to use the tags/revision data that just went into createrepo/yum (and other future improvements). So this ticket has fairly far reaching implications on rolling out Fedora build/release changes.

... 'want to use...' Surely to use those would require updated yum as well, so createrepo could be revved for RHEL & Fedora at the same time?

unique md file names are compatible with RHEL4/5? I'm just worried about the future is all. If you can assure us that always using rawhide's createrepo (if it'd even install on EL5) will produce output that is compatible with the GA of the oldest platform we produce updates for, then I don't see much of a problem.

I wouldn't use the --unique-md-filenames option for RHEL-5 (for Fedora pre. version 9), but you should be fine to use the same createrepo code for everything.

Doesn't that kind of prove my point? We're going to want unique filenames for the updates repos for any os that supports it, as that's the repodata that changes most frequently and would benefit from proxy helping setups.

Anyway, I guess I'll leave this for lmacken to pick up on.

Since F9 is now EOL'd, is this no longer an issue? Do we want to enable this for EPEL repositories?

pingo?

That's a good question. Lets talk about this on IRC, or maybe at fudcon.

Time to re-ping this issue. Many things are EOL now. It might be time to move bodhi onto a modern host (RHEL6), and look at enabling some of these features for some of the targets. Perhaps a good discussion for FUDCon Tempe.

Our updates repodata contains groups_gz now.