Jeremy Katz wrote:

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:30 +0100, Joel Andres Granados wrote:

Why remove package dir from the treeinfo info? better. Why remove
the info pointing to the package dirs? In fedora where the only
package dir is Packages its a little redundant to have this info in
the treeinfo file. but in other spins, where you might want to
separate your repos into logical sections (RHEL) it might not work as
well. The buildinstall process itself does not need this information
because it just needs the anaconda-runtime package to build (AFAICT),
but it would be good to be able to put a list of "package dirs" into
the treeinfo file to reflect the stage of the tree.
I would leave this change but put in some type of probing logic in
treeinfo so as to find all the dirs that contain repositories (a valid
repodata file) and put it in the treeinfo file.


The package dir stuff is related to product path. In the day (today)
where everything is dependent on having repodata available, the
product/package path as it used to be is just no longer relevant. Even
for products which have multiple sets of repodata on the discs.


Jeremy



The use case I wish would not go is the treeinfo file pointing to the different repodatas/repositories (Package1, Package2 ... ). As opposed to finding them by hand. This would be handy for scripts looking at the tree. Then again the scripts can also look into the directories for the repodata dir... It also can reflect the Packagedirs that were in the tree at the moment of running buildinstall. As I stated before, not so relevant for fedora, but could be usefull for other fedora/rhel based distros.

Regards


_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list


--
Joel Andres Granados
Red Hat / Brno, Czech Republic

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 10:39 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:30 +0100, Joel Andres Granados wrote:
> > Why remove package dir from the treeinfo info? better. Why remove
> > the info pointing to the package dirs? In fedora where the only
> > package dir is Packages its a little redundant to have this info in
> > the treeinfo file. but in other spins, where you might want to
> > separate your repos into logical sections (RHEL) it might not work as
> > well. The buildinstall process itself does not need this information
> > because it just needs the anaconda-runtime package to build (AFAICT),
> > but it would be good to be able to put a list of "package dirs" into
> > the treeinfo file to reflect the stage of the tree.
> > I would leave this change but put in some type of probing logic in
> > treeinfo so as to find all the dirs that contain repositories (a valid
> > repodata file) and put it in the treeinfo file.
>
> The package dir stuff is related to product path. In the day (today)
> where everything is dependent on having repodata available, the
> product/package path as it used to be is just no longer relevant. Even
> for products which have multiple sets of repodata on the discs.

Not everything requires repodata, conary for instance. The conary
backend makes use of the product/package path.

Elliot

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:03 -0500, Elliot Peele wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 10:39 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:30 +0100, Joel Andres Granados wrote:
> > > Why remove package dir from the treeinfo info? better. Why remove
> > > the info pointing to the package dirs? In fedora where the only
> > > package dir is Packages its a little redundant to have this info in
> > > the treeinfo file. but in other spins, where you might want to
> > > separate your repos into logical sections (RHEL) it might not work as
> > > well. The buildinstall process itself does not need this information
> > > because it just needs the anaconda-runtime package to build (AFAICT),
> > > but it would be good to be able to put a list of "package dirs" into
> > > the treeinfo file to reflect the stage of the tree.
> > > I would leave this change but put in some type of probing logic in
> > > treeinfo so as to find all the dirs that contain repositories (a valid
> > > repodata file) and put it in the treeinfo file.
> >
> > The package dir stuff is related to product path. In the day (today)
> > where everything is dependent on having repodata available, the
> > product/package path as it used to be is just no longer relevant. Even
> > for products which have multiple sets of repodata on the discs.
>
> Not everything requires repodata, conary for instance. The conary
> backend makes use of the product/package path.

... and you have your own scripts which build images, etc as well as a
whole backend. Different backends *can* depend on different things

Jeremy

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list