Hi list
I'm mirroring some centos trees for my site. I've seen that currently the (for example) 6 directory links to the 6.2 directory.
How about reversing that: let 6 always contain the latest and let 6.2 (latest) link to the 6 (base)?
There is at least the advantage (for me) that I only have to rsync a single tree (base). Also I think it's much clearer :-)
On 01/05/2012 03:07 PM, Ferry Huberts wrote:
Hi list
I'm mirroring some centos trees for my site. I've seen that currently the (for example) 6 directory links to the 6.2 directory.
How about reversing that: let 6 always contain the latest and let 6.2 (latest) link to the 6 (base)?
It is much easier to populate 6.x and then just change symlink. In your suggestion, they would have to move all files from 6 to 6.x, then populate 6 with new files. during that last period, we would not be able to use yum.
There is at least the advantage (for me) that I only have to rsync a single tree (base). Also I think it's much clearer :-)
I only sync 6 , not 6.x. There is no need if you anly want latest. 6 anyway points to latest 6.x, I do not see what your problem can bee.
Actually, I use mrepo and ISO files for base repo, and rsync only updates, and other repo's.
On 05-01-12 17:19, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
On 01/05/2012 03:07 PM, Ferry Huberts wrote:
Hi list
I'm mirroring some centos trees for my site. I've seen that currently the (for example) 6 directory links to the 6.2 directory.
How about reversing that: let 6 always contain the latest and let 6.2 (latest) link to the 6 (base)?
It is much easier to populate 6.x and then just change symlink. In your suggestion, they would have to move all files from 6 to 6.x, then populate 6 with new files. during that last period, we would not be able to use yum.
There is at least the advantage (for me) that I only have to rsync a single tree (base). Also I think it's much clearer :-)
I only sync 6 , not 6.x. There is no need if you anly want latest. 6 anyway points to latest 6.x, I do not see what your problem can bee.
After reading this and checking the rsync man page again, I rediscovered the -L option. After trying that it seems to work great for me.
Thanks for the hint :-)
Actually, I use mrepo and ISO files for base repo, and rsync only updates, and other repo's.
On 01/05/2012 02:07 PM, Ferry Huberts wrote:
There is at least the advantage (for me) that I only have to rsync a single tree (base). Also I think it's much clearer :-)
As a matter of interest - what sort of a use case do you have wherein the updates/ repo is not needed ?
On 05-01-12 17:58, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/05/2012 02:07 PM, Ferry Huberts wrote:
There is at least the advantage (for me) that I only have to rsync a single tree (base). Also I think it's much clearer :-)
As a matter of interest - what sort of a use case do you have wherein the updates/ repo is not needed ?
see my other mail, Ljubomir gave me a nice hint :-)
-
Ferry Huberts -
Karanbir Singh -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic