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. >