FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:13 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/26/2010 06:52 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> Personally I would suggest a 2 DVD set for everything, and a somewhat
> lighter "Server" DVD as per upstream that has room to grow during
> subsequent update releases. That combined with the minimal network
> install ISO image should cover most people's requirements?

I am also quite keen on the idea of retaining our single-merged distro,
atleast as the main option. And then perhaps a slightly light(er) weight
alternative.

Who now wants to take up the task of working out the package set which
should be on this alternative media ?

- KB

PS: still looking for 'options' to the 'optional' repo name
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:17 PM
Fabian Arrotin
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 06:52 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> Personally I would suggest a 2 DVD set for everything, and a somewhat
>> lighter "Server" DVD as per upstream that has room to grow during
>> subsequent update releases. That combined with the minimal network
>> install ISO image should cover most people's requirements?
>
> I am also quite keen on the idea of retaining our single-merged distro,
> atleast as the main option.

+1 here


--
--
Fabian Arrotin



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:20 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

Dne 26.11.2010 20:17, Fabian Arrotin napsal(a):
> Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 11/26/2010 06:52 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> I am also quite keen on the idea of retaining our single-merged distro,
>> atleast as the main option.
>
> +1 here
>

+1 for me.
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:32 PM
Lucas Timm LH
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

+1 for me
2010/11/26 David Hrbáč <hrbac.conf@seznam.cz>


Dne 26.11.2010 20:17, Fabian Arrotin napsal(a):

> Karanbir Singh wrote:

>> On 11/26/2010 06:52 PM, Ned Slider wrote:

>> I am also quite keen on the idea of retaining our single-merged distro,

>> atleast as the main option.

>

> +1 here

>



+1 for me.

DH

_______________________________________________

CentOS-devel mailing list

CentOS-devel@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel



--
Lucas Timm, Goiânia/GO.
http://timmerman.wordpress.com

(62) 8198-0867


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 06:50 PM
David Hrbáč
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

Dne 26.11.2010 19:30, Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
> Thats possible, but we should try and consider what the install package
> sets are on the upstream product and see if its possible to match that
> in some way.
>
> w.r.t ServerCD-4, i just went with the most common server packages ( as
> measured by download numbers on mirror.c.o ); that worked as an
> additional install media, over and above the main distro CD/DVD set, but
> if we are going to have something like this for our main install media I
> feel trying to get close to the upstream product might be a good idea.
>
> what do you think ?
>
> - KB

For me, the size is not so important, I don't find is as an issue. I
guess 2 DVDs with the first one as primary is the way to go. C5 goes the
same way and even if I can use CD isos I use only DVD iso now. I don't
think it's worth investing time to create server iso. It will only
increase storage requirements.
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:14 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

Am 26.11.10 19:32, schrieb Karanbir Singh:
> I am not sold on the idea of calling it 'optional' - as mentioned
> before, we dont really have a supported and optional model in CentOS.
> Does everyone really want to go with the 'optional' name ?

I'm (even with RHEL) wondering what makes them optional. Optional
compared to what? Sounds like some alternative in there, but then again
the question: An alternative to what?

I gather just having one repo with the "optional" packages in there
isn't that great, as people might want to stay close to the
"non-optional" RHEL when using CentOS.

I'd put those packages into Extras - even though we already had an extra
repository. But if those packages which RH deems to be optional - so are
ours.

What I don't want to have is base, updates, plus, extras and optional.
Either we drop base and put our packages into "optional" too, or we just
put "optional" into our extras.

We can clearly flag our packages via a repo tag, for example.

Ralph
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:26 PM
"James A. Peltier"
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

----- Original Message -----
| Hi,
|
| On 11/26/2010 06:43 PM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
| > For Spacewalk you only need to import the boot images and mirror the
| > repositories to channels. No need to work with media here.
|
| So just to confirm : mirror the repo's is something one would do
| over-the-net ? You cant use local isos or media for this ?
|
| - KB
| _______________________________________________
| CentOS-devel mailing list
| CentOS-devel@centos.org
| http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

With cobbler you can import with DVD or net media, spacewalk I think is the same

--
James A. Peltier
Systems Analyst (FASNet), VIVARIUM Technical Director
Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus
Phone : 778-782-6573
Fax : 778-782-3045
E-Mail : jpeltier@sfu.ca
Website : http://www.fas.sfu.ca | http://vivarium.cs.sfu.ca
http://blogs.sfu.ca/people/jpeltier
MSN : subatomic_spam@hotmail.com


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:28 PM
Fabian Arrotin
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Am 26.11.10 19:32, schrieb Karanbir Singh:
>> I am not sold on the idea of calling it 'optional' - as mentioned
>> before, we dont really have a supported and optional model in CentOS.
>> Does everyone really want to go with the 'optional' name ?
>
> I'm (even with RHEL) wondering what makes them optional. Optional
> compared to what? Sounds like some alternative in there, but then again
> the question: An alternative to what?

on a support point of view ( from a RHEL perspective) : most (if not
all) of the packages in the optional repo for rhel6-server are in fact
packages supported in the Workstation/Client subscription. So they are
made available through an 'optional' channel for people with a Server
subscription, but those customer won't get any support for such packages
coming from Optional

>
> I gather just having one repo with the "optional" packages in there
> isn't that great, as people might want to stay close to the
> "non-optional" RHEL when using CentOS.

As said above, because there is no support in CentOS and that such
packages are in the Workstation/Client channels (that CentOS doesn't
have), it's just one big repo for CentOS in the end

>
> I'd put those packages into Extras - even though we already had an extra
> repository. But if those packages which RH deems to be optional - so are
> ours.

My vision of the Extras repository was a repository of packages non
provided by Upstream, which is specifically the case for the optional ones

>

> What I don't want to have is base, updates, plus, extras and optional.
> Either we drop base and put our packages into "optional" too, or we just
> put "optional" into our extras.
>
> We can clearly flag our packages via a repo tag, for example.
>
> Ralph
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel


--
--
Fabian Arrotin



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 07:31 PM
Ned Slider
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 26/11/10 19:13, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 06:52 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> Personally I would suggest a 2 DVD set for everything, and a somewhat
>> lighter "Server" DVD as per upstream that has room to grow during
>> subsequent update releases. That combined with the minimal network
>> install ISO image should cover most people's requirements?
>
> I am also quite keen on the idea of retaining our single-merged distro,
> atleast as the main option. And then perhaps a slightly light(er) weight
> alternative.
>
> Who now wants to take up the task of working out the package set which
> should be on this alternative media ?
>

Well, I'd suggest starting with the package set on the upstream Server
disk as that looks fairly complete to me. There are some common
"Desktop" packages missing that might want to be added - evolution,
pidgin, thunderbird, xchat, and maybe even OpenOffice if there's room,
but most stuff is already there.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-26-2010, 10:21 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 04:52, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:

> The other option is to split the repos into
> [os]
> [updates]
> [optional] {1}
> [optional-updates] {2}
>
> {1} or use a better / different name
> {2} *do we even need the second -updates, we could go with what the
> present policy w.r.t centosplus/extras is - and drop updates into the
> same repo

[core] # your basic OS
[core-updates]
[extras] # the items not in basic
[extras-updates]
[bonus] # items not supplied by the upstream release?
[bonus-updates]

Keeping things consolidated as possible is good for developers dealing
with 'oh wait I need this from the sever-optional and this from
workstation-optional' problems. [Seeing this in compiling stuff for
EPEL]



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:06 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org