[CentOS-devel] RFC: CentOS 8 Repository Structure

[Brian Stinson]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019, at 11:18, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> On 19/06/2019 17:08, Brian Stinson wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> > While we cycle through some of the remaining builds I'd like to start a discussion about what the CentOS 8 repo structure might look like. We need to think about what the repos look like on-disk, and how this might impact the mirrors.
> > 
> > Currently the thinking is this:
> > 
> > 3 "core" repos: 
> > 
> > - BaseOS (contains a small packageset of the base distribution)
> > - AppStream ("where the modules go") 
> > - Devel ("-devel packages and other tools")
> > 
> > These descriptions are very much an oversimplification, but it's an ok model to work with. 
> 
> Does that mean having the add-ons like ha/rs going either to BaseOS (for
> simple packages) or to AppStream (if built as modules") ?

There are some HA and RT components that are shipped to CentOS BaseOS, but these are separate from the HighAvailability and RT variants in upstream. We won't ship the HA or RT variants.

> 
> > 
> > We plan to compose all of those repositories, and deliver updates in the same stream. 
> 
> Just so that people realize : no *updates* repo anymore, so all combined
> : if you install from network $today, what you'll install $tomorrow will
> have all rolled-in directly
> 
> 
> >The x86_64 tree for the BaseOS repository will look something like this:
> > 
> > x86_64
> > ├── debug # Note: we will likely snip this out and move debugs to debuginfo.centos.org
> > │ └── tree
> > │ ├── Packages
> > │ └── repodata
> > ├── iso
> > └── os
> > ├── EFI
> > │ └── BOOT
> > │ └── fonts
> > ├── images
> > │ └── pxeboot
> > ├── isolinux
> > ├── Packages
> > └── repodata
> > 
> > The plan is to re-compose BaseOS and all the "release" media like cloud images/ISOs at the traditional point-release times, and refresh the repodata in between as updates come in. 
> > 
> > Currently there are 3 primary architectures: x86_64, ppc64le, and aarch64, and 1 alternative architecture: armhfp. For CentOS 7 we split our primary and alternate architectures into /centos and /altarch on the mirrors to allow mirror admins to choose which trees to mirror. Is this something we'd like to continue? 
> > 
> 
> If ppc64le and aarch64 were "promoted" as "primary arches" (and it's now
> the case even for 7 in fact, as we consider those, also used for
> cbs.centos.org SIG builds), I'd say +1 to "move" them back under /centos/
> We can still have directories in /altarch/ with simple README file
> explaining where to find those for 8.
> 
> -- 
> Fabian Arrotin
> The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org
> gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
> 
> 
> *Attachments:*
>  * signature.asc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20190619/5ac910c4/attachment.html>