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 11-29-2010, 11:35 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/27/2010 09:07 AM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
>> 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.
>
> optional in extras would also be fine imho.

In light of the fact that upstream's optional repo's are specific to the
variant, I dont think we have any options ourselves. If we were to make
a list of things that are in all <varient>-options repo's we'd be left
with a very small list, and we'd need to put the rest into the base distro.

Which then really closes the door on having components in a seperate
repo, with the base being light. We're going to need to drop everything
into base and consider doing parallel builds. at the moment, thats the
base+livecd+minimal

or am I missing something ?

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 12:10 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/26/2010 08:31 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.

the upstream server product is almost a full DVD in itself. Is it worth
having the main distro on 2 DVD, and another option which is still a
complete'ish DVD ? If we are going to work out a lightweight CD size'd
install media, is it worth then also having the full DVD'ish option over
and above the 2 DVD disk full distro ?

-KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 12:24 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/29/2010 03:10 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 08:31 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> the upstream server product is almost a full DVD in itself. Is it worth
> having the main distro on 2 DVD, and another option which is still a
> complete'ish DVD ? If we are going to work out a lightweight CD size'd
> install media, is it worth then also having the full DVD'ish option over
> and above the 2 DVD disk full distro ?
unless the CD offers all that's needed for a lightweight SMB (as in
small business) server, it's not worth the effort ( at least not for
European users; I cannot speak for other parts of the world ). A server
edition on 1 DVD and a full-edition on 2 ( or more) DVDs satisfies me
completely.


/* my N82 has a SD card large enough to store a full DVD and I did use
it as install media */
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/29/2010 7:24 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 03:10 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 11/26/2010 08:31 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>> the upstream server product is almost a full DVD in itself. Is it worth
>> having the main distro on 2 DVD, and another option which is still a
>> complete'ish DVD ? If we are going to work out a lightweight CD size'd
>> install media, is it worth then also having the full DVD'ish option over
>> and above the 2 DVD disk full distro ?
> unless the CD offers all that's needed for a lightweight SMB (as in
> small business) server, it's not worth the effort ( at least not for
> European users; I cannot speak for other parts of the world ). A server
> edition on 1 DVD and a full-edition on 2 ( or more) DVDs satisfies me
> completely.

The point of a minimal install isn't to give you a turnkey server at its
first boot. It is to make it easy for anyone (even remote-hands that
don't know much about linux) to get a box to the point where you can ssh
in and say 'yum groupinstall ...' for the package set you want. All the
packages are available over the internet anyway but network installs
don't always work and don't give you much of a chance to diagnose
problems remotely. And you may want to add some local or 3rd party
repos before installing your final package set. Also, you may need to
install on machines with no DVD drive.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 07:57 PM
Ned Slider
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 29/11/10 13:10, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 08:31 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>
> the upstream server product is almost a full DVD in itself. Is it worth
> having the main distro on 2 DVD, and another option which is still a
> complete'ish DVD ? If we are going to work out a lightweight CD size'd
> install media, is it worth then also having the full DVD'ish option over
> and above the 2 DVD disk full distro ?
>

No, giving this some more thought I would just put out a 2 DVD full
distro set. Disk1 based on the upstream "Server" DVD and Disk2
containing everything else (i.e, the upstream "Optional" channel). Disk1
would also be your "minimal" disk giving everything that's required to
do an install meaning people don't need to download Disk2 to install.
The upstream Server DVDs are 2.7 and 3.2GB for x86 and x86-64, respectively.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 08:08 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/29/2010 10:57 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> On 29/11/10 13:10, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/2010 08:31 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> the upstream server product is almost a full DVD in itself. Is it worth
>> having the main distro on 2 DVD, and another option which is still a
>> complete'ish DVD ? If we are going to work out a lightweight CD size'd
>> install media, is it worth then also having the full DVD'ish option over
>> and above the 2 DVD disk full distro ?
>>
>>
>
> No, giving this some more thought I would just put out a 2 DVD full
> distro set. Disk1 based on the upstream "Server" DVD and Disk2
> containing everything else (i.e, the upstream "Optional" channel).
I agree so far ...

> Disk1 would also be your "minimal" disk giving everything that's required to
> do an install meaning people don't need to download Disk2 to install.
>
.. but not here. When people want "minimal" they expect to do that with
a _small_ download.[*] A full DVD does not fit this bill, even if it
can be used for a minimal install, too.

> The upstream Server DVDs are 2.7 and 3.2GB for x86 and x86-64, respectively.
>
I sincerely doubt that anyone would consider those as "minimal". I am
tempted to say that minimal should fit a definition similar to "grab a
small image -- the smaller the better -- and use it to do an install
which can give you a local root account which can further be used to
install what ever else is needed. And which allows basic network tests
as it is".


[*] And I rely this affirmation on the questions received on #centos.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 09:48 PM
Ned Slider
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 29/11/10 21:08, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 10:57 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>
>> No, giving this some more thought I would just put out a 2 DVD full
>> distro set. Disk1 based on the upstream "Server" DVD and Disk2
>> containing everything else (i.e, the upstream "Optional" channel).
> I agree so far ...
>
>> Disk1 would also be your "minimal" disk giving everything that's required to
>> do an install meaning people don't need to download Disk2 to install.
>>
> .. but not here. When people want "minimal" they expect to do that with
> a _small_ download.[*] A full DVD does not fit this bill, even if it
> can be used for a minimal install, too.
>
>> The upstream Server DVDs are 2.7 and 3.2GB for x86 and x86-64, respectively.
>>
> I sincerely doubt that anyone would consider those as "minimal". I am
> tempted to say that minimal should fit a definition similar to "grab a
> small image -- the smaller the better -- and use it to do an install
> which can give you a local root account which can further be used to
> install what ever else is needed. And which allows basic network tests
> as it is".
>

Which can be addressed by a minimal CD being discussed in a separate
thread. I tried to avoid mentioning that here so as not to cloud the DVD
media discussion :-)

My use of the quoted term "minimal" was perhaps misleading - I meant it
to refer to the fact that Disk1 could be used as a stand alone disk and
would not require the "optional" Disk2.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-30-2010, 12:42 AM
Douglas McClendon
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/29/2010 06:16 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/27/2010 09:10 PM, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> If you want fast, nothing beats a LiveCD/USB, particularly the way
>> fedora's livecd-tools does it (dd fs copy, with my convoluted dm
>
> thats not true. A bare metal install will finish before your livecd has
> finished booting. I have c5/node's build in just under 270 seconds from
> machine powerup - usb/optical media just cant shift data fast enough to
> first boot an environment then kickup an installed.

Sure, pedantically you are no doubt correct even though I have no idea
what a 'bare metal install' means in this context.

>
> ok, things might have changed in fedora13+; but I'd still like to see it
> being done.

no, I'm not talking anything that new, just standard f8 and onward.

>
>> optimization). If you want super-fast, throw a rebootless installer
>> (zyx-liveinstaller) on top of that. Oops, I just willfully spammed the
>
> .. and you lose any/all management ability from the standard
> distro-aware tools. Ofcourse, that does not matter if you don't need
> those tools anyway.

Also here I don't really know what you mean. Though yes, LiveCD
installations are presently still less flexible in several ways than the
traditional installer. I was just pointing out that they are also more
flexible in several ways, and my rebootless installer takes both sides
of that even further.

I didn't mean to suggest abandoning the traditional installer. I mean I
am crazy, but not _that_ crazy I do believe however that when most
people compare a traditional DVD install, or even the fanangled
traditional DVD image on usb boot media, to the LiveCD/DVD/USB method,
with or without my novelty rebootless alternative, they will find the
experience to be drastically speedier (at least in many cases). Simply
because writing 10K files to a filesystem takes a lot longer than dd'ing
a filesystem image. (and invoking rpm to install all of them, and other
steps, etc...)

But I'm sure there are many use cases outside my knowledge which you are
presumably referring to which are speedier still, and the right choice
for some situations but not others.

What I see however, is a LiveUSB that boots purty darn fast, and allows
installation purty darn fast. In fact, I envision a LiveUSB image that
acts pretty much like most LiveUSB's you are familiar with, but which
may also have a bootloader option to take you straight into the
afore-described minimal ssh/yumable state in just a couple minutes,
without even requiring any subsequent reboot before attaining fully
operational production state.

But what I'm describing are things I'd like to experiment with building,
and present as experimental options and ideas to this list in the
future. Absolutely off-topic as far as the obvious priority #1 of this
list at the moment. So... never mind for now.

-dmc

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-30-2010, 07:32 AM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/30/2010 12:48 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> On 29/11/10 21:08, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>> On 11/29/2010 10:57 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>> No, giving this some more thought I would just put out a 2 DVD full
>>> distro set. Disk1 based on the upstream "Server" DVD and Disk2
>>> containing everything else (i.e, the upstream "Optional" channel).
>> I agree so far ...
>>
>>> Disk1 would also be your "minimal" disk giving everything that's required to
>>> do an install meaning people don't need to download Disk2 to install.
>>>
>> .. but not here. When people want "minimal" they expect to do that with
>> a _small_ download.[*] A full DVD does not fit this bill, even if it
>> can be used for a minimal install, too.
>>
>>> The upstream Server DVDs are 2.7 and 3.2GB for x86 and x86-64, respectively.
>>>
>> I sincerely doubt that anyone would consider those as "minimal". I am
>> tempted to say that minimal should fit a definition similar to "grab a
>> small image -- the smaller the better -- and use it to do an install
>> which can give you a local root account which can further be used to
>> install what ever else is needed. And which allows basic network tests
>> as it is".
>>
> Which can be addressed by a minimal CD being discussed in a separate
> thread. I tried to avoid mentioning that here so as not to cloud the DVD
> media discussion :-)
>
> My use of the quoted term "minimal" was perhaps misleading - I meant it
> to refer to the fact that Disk1 could be used as a stand alone disk and
> would not require the "optional" Disk2.
Argh.. Indeed, it was misleading. In this case I agree with you , having
a fully contained first DVD ( even smaller than the maximum size allowed
by the standard !) labeled and able to be used as "server DVD" would fit
my needs.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 12-01-2010, 09:18 AM
Jean-Marc Liger
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

Le 30/11/10 09:32, Manuel Wolfshant a écrit :
> On 11/30/2010 12:48 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> On 29/11/10 21:08, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>> ...
>> My use of the quoted term "minimal" was perhaps misleading - I meant it
>> to refer to the fact that Disk1 could be used as a stand alone disk and
>> would not require the "optional" Disk2.
> Argh.. Indeed, it was misleading. In this case I agree with you , having
> a fully contained first DVD ( even smaller than the maximum size allowed
> by the standard !) labeled and able to be used as "server DVD" would fit
> my needs.
+1

JML
_______________________________________________
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 05:40 AM.

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