On 10/20/2010 06:03 PM, James A. Peltier wrote: > | 1) we change what is the expected tree / behaviour in CentOS-2.1/3/4/5 > | in that there is one rolled in product; and people would have come to > | expect that. > > Is this such a big deal? We're moving to CentOS 6. That's a major change and would but a viable reason to change the tree layout. I still think its a big deal, or can potentially become a big deal. Since this changes quite a lot of context in whats already available ( docs etc ) and what people would expect ( we have always said that we dont have any 'support driven / cost driven' build selections ). > | 2) Storage and duplicated rpms across isos's : its not that big a deal > | in that we can most likely work around the need to have a lot more > | storage on each mirror / msync machine; but it is a concern. > > multiple iso files does not equal duplicated RPMs that I can see. The tree would still be unified; no?!? Not really. Workstation build would have quite a lot of common ground with Server ( as an example: kernel / glibc / bash ). Also, the tree needs to ( or should ) match the primary install media or one loses out on a lot of potential tooling. eg Spacewalk / cobbler would then need to be aware of how the different tree's dont match up and howto handle those. - KB