[CentOS-devel] RFC: CentOS 8 Repository Structure

[Brian Stinson]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, at 07:25, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:46 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:32 PM Karanbir Singh <kbsingh at centos.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 19/06/2019 17:18, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > that's not going to work - we need to retain the ability to deliver
> > > reproducible installs.
> > >
> > > This may just be a case of having a second set of metadata.
> >
> > A "parent" directory with secondary metadata, including all sub
> > repositories, might work if we want it. But I think it's going to
> > cause mismatches and confusion between RHEL and CentOS, and we should
> > just use the upstream layout. For example, one issue is that the
> > upstream channels overlap: the "codebuilder", "highavailability" and
> > "resilientstorage" channels have some overlapping SRPMs and RPMs.
> > Duplicate content in multiple channels is begging for trouble. The
> > activation of modules would seem to compound the problem. Upstream
> > filesystems may support filesystems with hardlinks among identical
> > RPMs. Installation DVD images will not.
> >
> > > also, what life term are we going to have for the single repo structure
> > > ? are we hoping to retain all content for the life of the release ?
> >
> > Good question. I think it's going to be safer to simply perserve the
> > upstream layout and enable the additional channels, such as
> > "codebuilder" and "highavailability" and "resilientstorage", by
> > default. The "ansible" channels may require more thought.
> >
> 
> I'd rather have this bonkers layout *not* preserved in CentOS. Putting
> it all together in one repo (as was done for CentOS 6 and CentOS 7)
> has made things tremendously easier. The reason they're broken apart
> in RHEL is to allow charging people money for various aspects of RHEL.
> Or in the case of the "codebuilder" repo, dumb marketing purposes.
> 
> Simplicity is key here, and having the unified repo makes it *much*
> easier to use CentOS and build software from it.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>

To be clear, the plan is to *not* ship separate repositories for ResilientStorage, NFV, HighAvailability, or RT. There may be components of those upstream channels that make it into BaseOS.