[CentOS-devel] Considering repo re-structuring
jses27 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 27 11:28:15 EST 2010
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 12:21 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 12:18 PM, JohnS wrote:
> > Boot disk on mirrors is needed. Maybe a server install disc. What
> > about CD Install discs
> the usual network-install iso will get built anyway. We could then do a
> 'something like a server disk', but we would need to get our heads in
> and come up with a name. we cant call it 'server' since there is an
> upstream product by that name. Also, we would need some sort of a
> process to decide on pkg list.
There is no reason why it can not be called server. It is not Trade
Marked. Server reflects the very idea it is "a server install". As in
> Wolfy setup a quiz interface the other day, maybe if people want to get
> in their ideas of 'name of this cd iso' we can get a poll going to a
> wider audience. </just thinking out loud at this stage>
Where is this at?
> > [OS]
> > [Updates]<-- To contain all Updates
> > [Optional]
> > It really does not make sense to have two Update directories for the
> > repo.
> the problem with that would be : yum would see pkgs from the
> optional-updates, by default. While people might have the optional repo
While that may be true the more directories in the repo leaves more room
for failure on the repo cache updates.
More information about the CentOS-devel