Stephan Wiesand wrote:
> Hi Troy,
> 
> On Oct 15, 2010, at 22:38 , Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> In order to get development moving for SL6, we have created a Pre-Alpha release.
>> http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/
> 
> great news. Thanks!
> 
>> This is based off the latest public beta of RHEL6 from RedHat.
> 
> The beta 2 refresh?
> 
>> We have recompiled most of the rpm's, but not all, so some of them are RedHat's rpm's.
>>
>> At the time I am sending this email, there is only a network install.
> 
> Fine.
> 
>> But I am currently compiling a DVD  that has the install on it.
>>
>> Did I mention that this is for development.
>> Please don't complain about bugs RedHat should fix.
> 
> I'll try this a.s.a.p., which hopefully means "next week". Without having looked at it in detail yet, 

how did you go about server vs. workstation and that "optional" repo?
It seems you collapsed everything into os/<arch>/Packages?

Yes, just like the regular SL, we collapsed everything into one. 
Workstation, Server and Optional.

How final is this layout? No more "SL" ?

Not final at all.
I'm going to keep the layout for at least a week, but I already see 
problems.  I want to keep they layout for a week because it's a bit of a 
pain changing the yum config files.

Suggestions are welcome.

The goal was to follow the layout of RedHat and/or Fedora.
I already see that RedHat has things i386->[iso, os], x86_64->[iso,os] 
while I did iso->[i386, x86_64], os->[i386, x86_64]
So right there is one change.

Having SL versus Packages
I can be persuaded either way, but both Fedora and RedHat have things in 
Packages.

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group
__________________________________________________