[CentOS-devel] Considering repo re-structuring

Morten P.D. Stevens mstevens at imt-systems.com
Fri Nov 26 13:11:19 UTC 2010

2010/11/26 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org>:
> On 11/26/2010 12:35 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
>> My suggestion: Let's do it just like Red Hat.
> Why ?

Because it is much clearer.

A desktop / workstation version and a server version. (With the same repos)

If someone is missing something he can still install it with yum.

>> CentOS 6 Server (about 3,2 GB)
>> CentOS 6 Workstation (about 4 GB)
> What about the other variants ?

The client variant?

>> [os]
>> [updates]
>> [optional]
>> [extras]
> So, are you saying use 'optional' and put updates for pkgs into the same
> place ?

To prevent these problems, I propose to use an extra update repo for optional packages.

For example:


> On the other hand, retaining the name 'optional' might make it easier
> for people comparing upstream and centos - and perhaps share configs.

I am sure to continue to use [optional].

Best regards,


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list