[CentOS-devel] Considering repo re-structuring

Le 26/11/10 12:52, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
> Hi Guys,
>
> Some micro-conversations have taken place around this issue on various
> venues and its worth bringing all that together into one place.
>
> With EL6, the rpmlist has grown quite a bit, also there are components
> that Red Hat ship out in their 'optional' repo. Which are not available
> on the main isos. Or so I've been told - if you can verify that, please do.
>
> The other thing to keep in mind is that we have always merged in all
> packages from various variants that upstream ship - making all packages
> available to everyone was always the aim.
>
> So traditionally, CentOS has maintained the distro repositories in 2 url's:
>
> [os]
> [updates]
>
> with [os] reflecting whats on the isos/; as close to exactly as possible.
>
> With CentOS-6, we might need to reconsider that - there is way too much
> content to fit onto a single DVD. And having the main distro on multiple
> DVD's might be an option, but is that the best option ?
>
> to expand on that option, we could merge in all packages, built a DVD
> iso set ( 2 or 3 disks, whatever is needed ), stick with the [os] and
> [updates] repo's on mirror.c.o - and then potentially consider doing
> some 'slimmer' options. eg: CentOS-6-Minimal, or CentOS-6-SMB-Server etc.

The CentOS 5's merging of server, worstation and others declinations 
stick better with our usages : for example we use the server distro but 
we also need thunderbird package from the workstation distro and we 
perhaps need some other package from another specific delination. In 
this usage, doing some slimmer "dedicated-DVD" install, that shoud be 
complete after with yum, seems an excellent option.

> The other option is to split the repos into
> [os]
> [updates]
> [optional] {1}
> [optional-updates] {2}
>
> {1} or use a better / different name
> {2}  do we even need the second -updates, we could go with what the
> present policy w.r.t centosplus/extras is - and drop updates into the
> same repo

If you choose this option, optionnal (or better/different name) should 
work as the others extras/plus centos repos, so optional-updates should 
be avoid.

> Then stick with what we have done in the past, use the isos to reflect
> whats in [os], create the ability for people to use the [optional] repo
> at install time and go with that. The iso content would be dictated by
> the merged iso contents from upstream, so we retain the CentOS<= 5
> process in that regard.
>
> Continuing on the same idea, one thing that came up was reporpose the
> Extras/ repo and use that to host these 'additional/optional' packages.
> Given that it changes a massive user expectation - unless there is very
> good reasoning to do this, lets try and avoid this.

does CentOS-6 extras repo will contain some stuff which will be extra 
from Upstream ? same question for addons and contrib ?

JML