Actually, it is really a minor difference whether we make full copies of packages between repositories or hard link them. Truth be told, we defaulted to hard linking in the past, but thought people might prefer full copies (even at the cost of extra disk space) to absolutely guarantee that changes in one repository don't affect another. Sound like we were wrong for at least one person. :-) -----Original Message----- From: centos-devel-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-devel-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:28 PM To: The CentOS developers mailing list. Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] ostree as a delivery model On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Kay Williams <kay at deployproject.org> wrote: > We should really move further discussion to the deploy-users list, as > it is a separate project. But briefly, deploy makes it easy both to > create the _big_list_of_packages, and to automate testing, > installation, and updates using it. We keep a repository of physical > packages (rather than just a list of package > names/versions/repo_locations) both because it is easier to work with > and because we create some packages automatically as we go. The > differences between repository versions could be optimized for disk > space usage using hardlinks, and this is something we have considered and could implement relatively easily.... So even if you had dozens of deployments differing only by a few packages you would still require a full copy of everything in each of those states - kept for as long as you might want another deployment? I was hoping to find something that started with a more sensible premise. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel