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 11-27-2010, 12:02 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/26/2010 08:26 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
> | 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 ?
> |
> With cobbler you can import with DVD or net media, spacewalk I think is the same
>

So how does cobbler handle multiple dvd images ? is it aware of the
media:// style repo metadata ?

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-27-2010, 03:28 PM
JohnS
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 12:21 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 12:18 PM, JohnS wrote:
> > Boot disk on mirrors is needed. Maybe a server install disc. What
> > about CD Install discs
>
> the usual network-install iso will get built anyway. We could then do a
> 'something like a server disk', but we would need to get our heads in
> and come up with a name. we cant call it 'server' since there is an
> upstream product by that name. Also, we would need some sort of a
> process to decide on pkg list.

There is no reason why it can not be called server. It is not Trade
Marked. Server reflects the very idea it is "a server install". As in
"CentOS-6-Server"

> Wolfy setup a quiz interface the other day, maybe if people want to get
> in their ideas of 'name of this cd iso' we can get a poll going to a
> wider audience. </just thinking out loud at this stage>

Where is this at?

> > [OS]
> > [Updates]<-- To contain all Updates
> > [Optional]
> >
> > It really does not make sense to have two Update directories for the
> > repo.
>
> the problem with that would be : yum would see pkgs from the
> optional-updates, by default. While people might have the optional repo
> disabled.

While that may be true the more directories in the repo leaves more room
for failure on the repo cache updates.

John



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-27-2010, 04:32 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/26/10 2:28 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>
> 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

Is there any chance that the packages in the optional repo will be the same as
packages in some other repo but at different revs (presumably so that by
enabling the optional repo you would get a new version)? If so, merging it with
any other repo contents will cause problems later. Also, the more you put in
one repo the more likely it is to cause dependency issues when you have 3rd
party repos enabled, so mixing it with extras is likely to cause trouble too.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-27-2010, 04:45 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/26/10 12:30 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 05:06 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>> 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)".
>
> 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 ?

I think it would be great to have a minimal CD/USB install image that would get
you to a point where you can run yum after the reboot. Whether enough server
packages fit to be useful without having yum install more packages is somewhat
irrelevant if we assume that you need enough internet connectivity to do updates
anyway. The idea would be to have a super-fast install that doesn't need a DVD
drive and gets you to a point where you can debug hardware/network problems, add
some drivers, etc. in difficult cases and (unlike a network install) lets you
continue after failures. And it would make it quick and easy for off-site
people to get a machine to the point where you could ssh in to run the rest of
the 'yum install', etc. commands to customize it.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-27-2010, 08:10 PM
Douglas McClendon
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/27/2010 11:45 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 11/26/10 12:30 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 11/26/2010 05:06 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>>> 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)".
>>
>> 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 ?
>
> I think it would be great to have a minimal CD/USB install image that would get
> you to a point where you can run yum after the reboot. Whether enough server
> packages fit to be useful without having yum install more packages is somewhat
> irrelevant if we assume that you need enough internet connectivity to do updates
> anyway. The idea would be to have a super-fast install that doesn't need a DVD

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
optimization). If you want super-fast, throw a rebootless installer
(zyx-liveinstaller) on top of that. Oops, I just willfully spammed the
list. It just seemed relevent to the thread however. And also a good
place to add the forgotten caveat to my last post about procedure, i.e.
I do have an obvious ulterior motive in wanting to see round1 packages
ASAP, so that I can start playing around with centos6 based livecd/usbs.

-dmc

> drive and gets you to a point where you can debug hardware/network problems, add
> some drivers, etc. in difficult cases and (unlike a network install) lets you
> continue after failures. And it would make it quick and easy for off-site
> people to get a machine to the point where you could ssh in to run the rest of
> the 'yum install', etc. commands to customize it.
>

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-27-2010, 08:25 PM
Alan Bartlett
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 27 November 2010 17:45, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it would be great to have a minimal CD/USB install image that would get
> you to a point where you can run yum after the reboot. *Whether enough server
> packages fit to be useful without having yum install more packages is somewhat
> irrelevant if we assume that you need enough internet connectivity to do updates
> anyway. * The idea would be to have a super-fast install that doesn't need a DVD
> drive and gets you to a point where you can debug hardware/network problems, add
> some drivers, etc. in difficult cases and (unlike a network install) lets you
> continue after failures. *And it would make it quick and easy for off-site
> people to get a machine to the point where you could ssh in to run the rest of
> the 'yum install', etc. commands to customize it.

That would be an eminently useful install medium, Les. As someone who
routinely uses just CD-1 out of an install set, I would certainly make
use of such a medium.

Alan.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 11:07 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/27/2010 04:28 PM, JohnS wrote:
> There is no reason why it can not be called server. It is not Trade
> Marked. Server reflects the very idea it is "a server install". As in
> "CentOS-6-Server"

As I already said previously, it cant be called server unless it
contains the exact same components as the upstream server product - way
too much confusion to be had otherwise.

>> Wolfy setup a quiz interface the other day, maybe if people want to get
> Where is this at?

on a machine with a web server ? Not sure what the best answer to that
question of your's is there is no quiz / poll on there at the moment.
If we get around to using it, will publish a url along with the poll
details.

> While that may be true the more directories in the repo leaves more room
> for failure on the repo cache updates.

can you elaborate on that a bit ?

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 11:16 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

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.

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

> 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.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 11:17 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

On 11/27/2010 05:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I think it would be great to have a minimal CD/USB install image that would get
> you to a point where you can run yum after the reboot. Whether enough server
>

Moving conversation to a new thread. I think there is enough interest to
consider a minimal install option.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 11-29-2010, 11:26 AM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Considering repo re-structuring

Hi,

On 11/27/2010 05:32 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> 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
> Is there any chance that the packages in the optional repo will be the same as
> packages in some other repo but at different revs (presumably so that by

I believe that is indeed the case. server-optional is not identical to
<something else variant>-optional.

For dep loops and build ordering / mock config buildout / chroot
population, I know for a fact that the optional pkgs have been
considered upstream as well.

Although, they have had some really weird build linking, making me think
that they have decided to adopt our model of non-standard build roots

- KB
_______________________________________________
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 11:40 PM.

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