Hi all. > | 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. Btw. split media support has been removed from anaconda in rawhide. Not sure if this will also affect rhel 6. Greets Marcus