I think, architecture dependent splitting may reasonable for multi-
architecture install-media.

Currently in our dual architecture (i386+x86_64 ) SL Cyrillic Edition 44
DVD we must making two separate directories (like SL.44.i386 and
SL.44.x86_64) with a full distributions and use 2 different switchable
grub configurations for hardware platform choosing.

--Oleg


В Срд, 14/03/2007 в 08:27 -0500, Troy Dawson пишет:
> 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