Howabout we do 3, and add some symlinks, ClientServer Client, etc. that all point to the common directory, so things that are *looking* for the RedHat-style path will find them, but everyone else can ignore them... Marc 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 > > 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