Considering repo re-structuring
 

2010/11/26 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org>:

> to expand on that option, we could merge in all packages, built a DVD
> iso set ( 2 or 3 disks, whatever is needed ), stick with the [os] and
> [updates] repo's on mirror.c.o - and then potentially consider doing
> some 'slimmer' options. eg: CentOS-6-Minimal, or CentOS-6-SMB-Server etc.

Hi Karanbir,

My suggestion: Let's do it just like Red Hat.

2 DVDs:

CentOS 6 Server (about 3,2 GB)
CentOS 6 Workstation (about 4 GB)

Repos:

[os]
[updates]
[optional]
[extras]

Best regards,

Morten
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

On 11/26/2010 12:35 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
> My suggestion: Let's do it just like Red Hat.

Why ?

> CentOS 6 Server (about 3,2 GB)
> CentOS 6 Workstation (about 4 GB)

What about the other variants ?

> [os]
> [updates]
> [optional]
> [extras]

So, are you saying use 'optional' and put updates for pkgs into the same
place ?

Can we come up with a better name than 'optional' ? Since essentially
pretty much anything and everything in the CentOS distro is just about
as optional as anything else.

On the other hand, retaining the name 'optional' might make it easier
for people comparing upstream and centos - and perhaps share configs.

discuss!

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

2010/11/26 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org>:
> On 11/26/2010 12:35 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
>> My suggestion: Let's do it just like Red Hat.
>
> Why ?

Because it is much clearer.

A desktop / workstation version and a server version. (With the same repos)

If someone is missing something he can still install it with yum.

>
>> CentOS 6 Server (about 3,2 GB)
>> CentOS 6 Workstation (about 4 GB)
>
> What about the other variants ?

The client variant?


>> [os]
>> [updates]
>> [optional]
>> [extras]
>
> So, are you saying use 'optional' and put updates for pkgs into the same
> place ?

To prevent these problems, I propose to use an extra update repo for optional packages.

For example:

[optional-updates]

> On the other hand, retaining the name 'optional' might make it easier
> for people comparing upstream and centos - and perhaps share configs.

I am sure to continue to use [optional].

Best regards,

Morten
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

Le 26/11/10 12:52, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
> Hi Guys,
>
> Some micro-conversations have taken place around this issue on various
> venues and its worth bringing all that together into one place.
>
> With EL6, the rpmlist has grown quite a bit, also there are components
> that Red Hat ship out in their 'optional' repo. Which are not available
> on the main isos. Or so I've been told - if you can verify that, please do.
>
> The other thing to keep in mind is that we have always merged in all
> packages from various variants that upstream ship - making all packages
> available to everyone was always the aim.
>
> So traditionally, CentOS has maintained the distro repositories in 2 url's:
>
> [os]
> [updates]
>
> with [os] reflecting whats on the isos/; as close to exactly as possible.
>
> With CentOS-6, we might need to reconsider that - there is way too much
> content to fit onto a single DVD. And having the main distro on multiple
> DVD's might be an option, but is that the best option ?
>
> to expand on that option, we could merge in all packages, built a DVD
> iso set ( 2 or 3 disks, whatever is needed ), stick with the [os] and
> [updates] repo's on mirror.c.o - and then potentially consider doing
> some 'slimmer' options. eg: CentOS-6-Minimal, or CentOS-6-SMB-Server etc.

The CentOS 5's merging of server, worstation and others declinations
stick better with our usages : for example we use the server distro but
we also need thunderbird package from the workstation distro and we
perhaps need some other package from another specific delination. In
this usage, doing some slimmer "dedicated-DVD" install, that shoud be
complete after with yum, seems an excellent option.

> 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

If you choose this option, optionnal (or better/different name) should
work as the others extras/plus centos repos, so optional-updates should
be avoid.

> Then stick with what we have done in the past, use the isos to reflect
> whats in [os], create the ability for people to use the [optional] repo
> at install time and go with that. The iso content would be dictated by
> the merged iso contents from upstream, so we retain the CentOS<= 5
> process in that regard.
>
> Continuing on the same idea, one thing that came up was reporpose the
> Extras/ repo and use that to host these 'additional/optional' packages.
> Given that it changes a massive user expectation - unless there is very
> good reasoning to do this, lets try and avoid this.

does CentOS-6 extras repo will contain some stuff which will be extra
from Upstream ? same question for addons and contrib ?

JML
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

On 11/26/2010 02:19 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>> Then stick with what we have done in the past, use the isos to reflect
>> whats in [os], create the ability for people to use the [optional] repo
>> at install time and go with that. The iso content would be dictated by
>> the merged iso contents from upstream, so we retain the CentOS<= 5
>> process in that regard.
>>
>> Continuing on the same idea, one thing that came up was reporpose the
>> Extras/ repo and use that to host these 'additional/optional' packages.
>> Given that it changes a massive user expectation - unless there is very
>> good reasoning to do this, lets try and avoid this.
>
> does CentOS-6 extras repo will contain some stuff which will be extra
> from Upstream ? same question for addons and contrib ?
>

IMHO, keeping close to upstream schema is better for people are mixing
RHEL/CentOS so their config / script (yum specific) can be shared easily ;

BTW, make a remix/livecd/livedvd should be easy using fedora's
livecd-tools because RHEL6/CentOS6 are based on Fedora 12/13

Regards.

--
Athmane Madjoudj
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

On 11/26/2010 01:11 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
>>> My suggestion: Let's do it just like Red Hat.
> Because it is much clearer.

What about the fact that we've always had a single merged distro layout
for 2.1/3/4/5 ? There is a fairly consistent user experience and user
expectation built around that as well, right ?

Also, consider that having so many more isos and so many more repo's
will also drastically increase the disk space requirements on mirrors.
We could get around that to some extent using hardlinks between the
repo's but the ISOS will need their own space.

> A desktop / workstation version and a server version. (With the same repos)

Maybe this can happen - have multiple install media with the same repo
on mirror.centos.org; what are the implications arising from this ?

>>> CentOS 6 Server (about 3,2 GB)
>>> CentOS 6 Workstation (about 4 GB)
>> What about the other variants ?
> The client variant?

There are also the storage products, the computenode etc. Given that we
have no support model, and it makes little sense to replicate pkgs for
isos and base repo's I dont really see why we would want all that overhead.

> I am sure to continue to use [optional].

why :)

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

On 11/26/2010 01:19 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
> perhaps need some other package from another specific delination. In
> this usage, doing some slimmer "dedicated-DVD" install, that shoud be
> complete after with yum, seems an excellent option.

Would you be able to come up with a list of packages, you think are
essential to have on this slim-dvd ?

Thanks

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

2010/11/26 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org>:

> What about the fact that we've always had a single merged distro layout
> for 2.1/3/4/5 ? There is a fairly consistent user experience and user
> expectation built around that as well, right ?

That's a good question. In recent years the size of all linux distibutions is greatly increased.

The other possibility: We make 2 DVDs for CentOS6 containing all packages.
In any case, I would appreciate if we offer a network install CD like Red Hat.

> Also, consider that having so many more isos and so many more repo's
> will also drastically increase the disk space requirements on mirrors.
> We could get around that to some extent using hardlinks between the
> repo's but the ISOS will need their own space.

Yes, this is the drawback.

On the other hand, CentOS 6 will be identical to RHEL6.
This would make it easier for newcomers.

> There are also the storage products, the computenode etc. Given that we
> have no support model, and it makes little sense to replicate pkgs for
> isos and base repo's I dont really see why we would want all that overhead.

The workstation and server version of CentOS 6 can indeed contain these packages.

We need only 2 versions: CentOS Server and Workstation containing all the upstream packages.

>> I am sure to continue to use [optional].
>
> why :)

For clarity :)

Best regards,

Morten
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

Le 26/11/10 17:14, Karanbir Singh a écrit*:

On 11/26/2010 01:19 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:


perhaps need some other package from another specific delination. In
this usage, doing some slimmer "dedicated-DVD" install, that shoud be
complete after with yum, seems an excellent option.



Would you be able to come up with a list of packages, you think are
essential to have on this slim-dvd ?

Thanks

- KB

Something which focus on what was the CentOS 4 Server CD is a good
target.



We could base it on some current Group Install Options like "CentOS
Server (GUI)".



JML



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Considering repo re-structuring
 

Hi all.

> [os]
> [updates]
> [optional] {1}
> [optional-updates] {2}

+1 for an optional repository.

> {1} or use a better / different name

I like the 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

I would suggest to drop updates directly to optional. no need for
having a separate repo here imho.

Besides that I am not a fan of different installation medias for
workstation and server. One of the advantages of CentOS always was to
allow installation of both with one media kit.

--
Greets
Marcus
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel