|
Wouldn’t that require replicated the
same package multiple times, i.e. the single rpm that supports multiple distros
and versions? My personal view is to break it up by layout-arch-distro-version.
It’s my experience that an rpm is more likely to support all
distributions for a given processor architecture than it is to support all processors
for a given distribution. The bigger groups should work their way down to the
smaller groups. Layout represents the structure of the Linux platform, such as “redhat”,
debian, and “suse”. Even many “noarch” packages simply
are incompatible across these platforms. “redhat” would include el,
fc, centos, and any number of other platforms that us the same directory/process/device/script
layout as Red Hat OSes. Secondly, only provide subdirectories if there
are packages that should be used instead of those in the current directory. The
assumption being that unless there is a subdirectory reflecting your specific platform,
use the more generic packages. For example all “noarch” packages
that run on all platforms would be located in the root of the distro directory.
This eliminates redundancy. Just my thoughts, J- From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernard Li Currently in trunk, I think all packages
have the distro/ directories which contain the distro specific RPMs.
However, they come in 3 different levels of specificity: distribution: eg. fc distribution-version: eg. fc4 distribution-version-arch: eg. fc4-x86_64 I personally would like this cleaned up
such that they are all in the last form (distribution-version-arch), this makes
it really easy to create specific tarballs for users. There is potentially any way to organize
the directories, which is: distribution/version/arch, eg. distro/fc/4/x86_64 distro/rhel/3/ia64 My goal here is to make things more
organized. Cheers, Bernard |
- [Oscar-devel] packages' distro/ directories Bernard Li
- RE: [Oscar-devel] packages' distro/ directories Siadal, Jeremy C
