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