On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Steven Timm wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > This currently is not set in stone, so now is the time to talk about it.
> >
> > With RHEL5 beta2 Redhat has divided up their different products into 
> > different repositories, each in it's own directory.  So under /rhel5/i386 you 
> > have the directories
> > Client Cluster ClusterStorage Server VT Workstation
> > This makes it easy for them to sell someone a package, they get a key, and 
> > depending on what the key is, certain repositories are available.
> >
> > But to distributions like us, well, it's not what we're used to.
> >
> > Preliminary discussions on whiteboards between Connie and I have shown 3 ways 
> > that we can proceed.  Each has it's Pro's and Con's.
> >
> > 1 - Do just what Red Hat does.
> > Directories:
> >  /Client /Cluster /ClusterStorage /Server /VT /Workstation
> > Pro:
> >  Just like RedHat
> > Con:
> >  Duplication of pacakges in /Client and /Server
> >  Hard for Users to find packages by hand
> >  Hard for developers to figure out where to put packages
> >  Why have them in separate directories when we will include them all
> >
> > 2 - Follow RedHat, but combine similar packages from Client and Server
> > Directories:
> >  /ClientServer /Client /Cluster /ClusterStorage /Server /VT /Workstation
> > Pro:
> >  Almost like RedHat
> >  No duplication of packages
> > Con:
> >  Hard for Users to find packages by hand
> >  Hard for developers to figure out where to put packages
> >  Why have them in separate directories when we will include them all
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to create a logical /SL, /contrib, and /sites
> through judicious use of symlinks, but have the regular
> redhat directories above exist as well for those who may
> be looking for them?  As long as there is no redhat in
> the directory tree there's no reason not to keep their structure
> and just add to it, is there?

Will research this.  Biggest issue is that "symlinks" seem to confuse 
users.  That is why I used "hardlinks" for all of the rpms that are in 
both the Client and Server directories.

-Connie Sieh
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 3 - Mush everything into our normal directory structure
> > Directories:
> >  /SL /contrib /sites
> > Pro:
> >  Easy for users to find packages
> >  Easy for developers to know where to put packages
> >  No duplication of packages
> >  Makes more logical sense
> > Con:
> >  Have to combine all the comps.xml files, each time we have a release
> >  People used to regular RedHat might be a bit confused
> >  Will require more anaconda changes
> >
> > My personal opinion, and I'm willing to be disagreed with.
> > I want to go with option 3.
> >
> > Troy
> >
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven C. Timm, Ph.D  (630) 840-8525
> [log in to unmask]  http://home.fnal.gov/~timm/
> Fermilab Computing Division, Scientific Computing Facilities,
> Grid Facilities Department, FermiGrid Services Group, Assistant Group Leader.
>