repositories: convert from JSON to YAML

[lzap]

Converts repos from JSON to YAML, I used Python to do the job and then I created a formatting script that modifies the generated YAML because it was totally unusable (keys order, quoting, GPG keys not multi-line).

There are no changes made except I took the liberty to remove empty lists (e.g. gpgkeys: []) I quickly scanned the codebase and it should not be a problem. It looks nicer this way.

Edit: I dropped the conversion script which I initially included. Shutzbot update PR linked to this PR.

[schutzbot]

A previous version of this PR changed the images API or behaviour causing integration issues with osbuild-composer.
This is now fixed.

[supakeen]

Needs conflict resolving and since #2114 landed those probably also want conversion? :)

[lzap]

Sure, done.

[supakeen]

Thank you, I'm OK with this. Let's see if others feel strongly about keeping it YAML (perhaps backports are annoying?).

[achilleas-k]

I would personally prefer not to do this, but can be convinced otherwise if everyone else is in favour.

The downsides of keeping them in json, as far as I can tell are:

1. Long strings with linebreaks are annoying (GPG keys).
2. No comments.

I agree with 1, but 2 was never a problem for these files.

Now, the downsides of having them in yaml are:

1. No standard library support in any language we use. That's fine for Go, we use yaml internally already, but for our other tooling, which is usually python scripts, that means we need an external dependency for every small script that needs to read or modify these files.
2. Needs a whole other script to format it to make it readable.

I don't think it's worth it. We're rarely, if ever, modifying these by hand and constantly reading and modifying them in scripts. I agree that the GPG keys can get annoying to copy and paste in json but it's not frequent enough nor really that difficult to do to warrant this kind of change.

[supakeen]

I would personally prefer not to do this, but can be convinced otherwise if everyone else is in favour.

The downsides of keeping them in json, as far as I can tell are:

1. Long strings with linebreaks are annoying (GPG keys).

2. No comments.

I agree with 1, but 2 was never a problem for these files.

Now, the downsides of having them in yaml are:

1. No standard library support in any language we use.  That's fine for Go, we use yaml internally already, but for our other tooling, which is usually python scripts, that means we need an external dependency for every small script that needs to read or modify these files.

2. Needs a whole other script to format it to make it readable.

I don't think it's worth it. We're rarely, if ever, modifying these by hand and constantly reading and modifying them in scripts. I agree that the GPG keys can get annoying to copy and paste in json but it's not frequent enough nor really that difficult to do to warrant this kind of change.

The benefit is mostly to users that can more easily copy these files and edit them. It might be small :)

[achilleas-k]

The benefit is mostly to users that can more easily copy these files and edit them. It might be small :)

I do agree there's value there, especially with the image definition config drop-ins etc. And going back to the discussion of having repo definitions as part of the distro definitions instead of living separately is still worth doing. But that's a bigger topic that requires more careful consideration (backwards compatibility with existing documentation, the way distro versions are defined by repos, how things work in brew, osbuild-composer, etc). I think we need to consider these, but this quick format change to me is a distraction that doesn't really take into account any other future plans.

[lzap]

With nobody coming in with support for this, I am closing this for good.