zypper addrepo: switch to the supported syntax

[yecril71pl]

The .repo files are gone. The only supported syntax is →addrepo $URI $ALIAS. We shall use the project name to ALIAS for lack of a better choice; since this is just an instruction, the administrator running this command can use their own ALIAS.

---

Fixes →bsc#1185917

• I've included before / after screenshots or did not change the UI

[agraul]

Thanks for the PR @yecril71pl! The download page is indeed pretty naive and too often links to incorrect places. That said, I don't think omitting the .repo is what we really want. Packages that are in the official distribution repositories (i.e. packages in Tumbleweed or Leap) can be installed without adding new repositories. Instead of changing the link of the repository, the download page shouldn't contain instructions to add those repos. For other repositories (e.g. devel and home repos), using the .repo file is still the way to go as far as I know.

[yecril71pl]

For other repositories (e.g. devel and home repos), using the .repo file is still the way to go as far as I know.

Using .repo files with zypper is undocumented and unsupported.

[agraul]

For other repositories (e.g. devel and home repos), using the .repo file is still the way to go as far as I know.

Using .repo files with zypper is undocumented and unsupported.

That's news to me, do you have a source to back that up?

man 8 zypper documents using .repo files:

addrepo (ar) [options] FILE*.repo*
           Add a new repository specified by URI and assign specified alias to it or specify URI to a .repo file.

Zypper's help output also documents how to use .repo files:

$ zypper --help addrepo
addrepo (ar) [OPTIONS] <URI> <ALIAS>
addrepo (ar) [OPTIONS] <FILE.repo>

Add a repository to the system. The repository can be specified by its URI or can be read from
specified .repo file (even remote).

[yecril71pl]

Using .repo files with zypper is undocumented and unsupported.

That's news to me, do you have a source to back that up?

#1062 (comment)

[agraul]

Using .repo files with zypper is undocumented and unsupported.

That's news to me, do you have a source to back that up?

#1062 (comment)

Sorry, but quoting your own pull request description is not the type of source I am looking for. I saw your claim, but quoting the same claim does not improve its trustworthiness. If you wanted me to read the linked bug report, I've already done that. It also lacks the confirmation that using .repo files is unsupported.

Let me re-iterate that there definitely is a bug in software-o-o, software-o-o should not instruct users to add "official repositories". That includes openSUSE:Factory (which is only published as Tumbleweed for consumption)."Official repositories" are set up at installation time and don't need to be added again.

[yecril71pl]

#1062 (comment)

Sorry, but quoting your own pull request description is not the type of source I am looking for. I saw your claim, but quoting the same claim does not improve its trustworthiness. If you wanted me to read the linked bug report, I've already done that. It also lacks the confirmation that using .repo files is unsupported.

Please follow the hyperlink in the sentence that you claim is unsubstantiated. Hint: The hyperlink does not point at the bug report.

Let me re-iterate that there definitely is a bug in software-o-o, software-o-o should not instruct users to add "official repositories". That includes openSUSE:Factory (which is only published as Tumbleweed for consumption)."Official repositories" are set up at installation time and don't need to be added again.

That is another thing to get fixed but I do not think fixing both at one shot is a great idea.

[agraul]

#1062 (comment)

Sorry, but quoting your own pull request description is not the type of source I am looking for. I saw your claim, but quoting the same claim does not improve its trustworthiness. If you wanted me to read the linked bug report, I've already done that. It also lacks the confirmation that using .repo files is unsupported.

Please follow the hyperlink in the sentence that you claim is unsubstantiated. Hint: The hyperlink does not point at the bug report.

Thanks for the hint, I overlooked the hyperlink. I now see that this documentation does not list the option to use a .repo file and I can understand how you reached the conclusion that using .repo files is undocumented. I still don't see a deprecation notice and wonder if the documentation is merely incomplete. As far as I know, the documentation is not supposed to include everything, there are manual pages (like man 8 zypper) for that. Based on the manual page and the experience that .repo files work, I don't see the need to change the instructions.

One could make the point that the inconsistency between the documentation and our instructions is unnecessary and potentially confusing and should be considered as a visual bug.

Let me re-iterate that there definitely is a bug in software-o-o, software-o-o should not instruct users to add "official repositories". That includes openSUSE:Factory (which is only published as Tumbleweed for consumption)."Official repositories" are set up at installation time and don't need to be added again.

That is another thing to get fixed but I do not think fixing both at one shot is a great idea.

They don't have to be fixed at once. I would give this one a higher priority since it is a functional bug and the other is a visual bug at best, but I agree that it's not something for this bug report.

Lastly I would like to let you know that I don't like the way you communicate in this pull request. Obviously I overlooked link to the Leap documentation and I would have preferred it had you repeated that link instead of linking to your comment without further notice. You might want to reconsider if that's the way you want to communicate. I would not be surprised if other open source maintainers had closed the pull request at that point.

[yecril71pl]

Lastly I would like to let you know that I don't like the way you communicate in this pull request. Obviously I overlooked link to the Leap documentation and I would have preferred it had you repeated that link instead of linking to your comment without further notice. You might want to reconsider if that's the way you want to communicate. I would not be surprised if other open source maintainers had closed the pull request at that point.

I have started a community discussion, escalating would help (if we have an account). Lacking support from GitHub, I have made the hyperlink more explicit and I promise to do that from now on.

[yecril71pl]

Thanks for the hint, I overlooked the hyperlink. I now see that this documentation does not list the option to use a .repo file and I can understand how you reached the conclusion that using .repo files is undocumented. I still don't see a deprecation notice and wonder if the documentation is merely incomplete. As far as I know, the documentation is not supposed to include everything, there are manual pages (like man 8 zypper) for that. Based on the manual page and the experience that .repo files work, I don't see the need to change the instructions.

I recently updated a 3yo Tumbleweed. YaST2 was unable to update it because it could not find the .repo file. There is clearly something going on.

[hellcp]

Updating Tumbleweed with YaST2 is not a supported scenario, because it performs the up and not the dup equivalent. We have stopped shipping the YaST Update module with newer TW Installations too, though that being said, it's still accessible through the Software module, it's only removed to decrease discoverability of something that has the potential to break Installations.