Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Stephan Wiesand <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Troy,
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Troy Dawson wrote:
>>
>> > The Scientific Linux developers are pleased to announce our "Second
>> > Alpha Release" of Scientific Linux 5.0
>> >
>> > This is not for production use.
>> > This release will change *dramatically* before the final release.
>>
>> I really hope it won't.
>>
>> I ks-installed both the x86 and x86_64 flavours. It just worked, and I
>> haven't found any problems yet that would not be present in TUV's beta2
>> as well.
>>
>> > You have been warned.
>>
>> Ok...
>>
>> It's still good to have the familiar repository structure back. Thanks.
>> NB It seems CentOS made the same decision. I personally think both
>> projects are right here.
>>
> 
> Well there is a difference.. CentOS went with /Centos/<stuff> and it
> looks like SciLin went with /SL/RPMS/<stuff> which is closer to the
> older layout.
> 

Ya, we figured that if we were going to bring it back to one directory, 
we'd have that directory be the same as all the previous releases.  We 
also have SL/base and SL/build, which hold the same stuff in them as before.
Although the comps file in SL/base is actually a copy of the comps file 
in SL/RPMS/repodata.  We did that so that some old scripts still work.

I see that CentOS moved your repodata up to where RHEL 5 has it.  We had 
to move our's back to the SL/RPMS because we have our updates(errata) 
directory at that level (i386/updates).

Which brings up a good point, and now is the time to talk about it 
instead of after the release.

Currently, SL 3.x and 4.x has the directory structure

4.4/i386/errata
4.4/i386/contrib
4.4/i386/SL/RPMS

Where everything is pushed up into the arch directory.  CentOS has things at

4.4/contrib/i386
4.4/updates/i386
4.4/os/i386/CentOS/RPMS

So that the division is down before the arch.

I don't think we should change SL3 or 4, that would confuse users too 
much.  But what are people's opinions about moving to that directory 
structure for SL5.

The biggest plus I see is that it would make things easier to mirror.

It might make things a little confusing for those longtime SL people, 
but some of them might like it.  To be honest, I haven't had anyone come 
to me asking where the errata directory was, so the current scheme must 
not be too hard to figure out.

Any ideas?

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________