On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Arun Tomar <tomar.arun at gmail.com> wrote: > > RPM is good. Now a days they use LZMA compression so the file size is > small and you could fit in more software in cd or dvd. I heard that > people have been working at redhat so that when updating the existing > software, only new code or diff would be applied and no need to download > the entire package, which seems to be a good idea. >
delta-rpms. Yes, there's quite some interest in various communities about this. > I hate the different files for different repositories model. why can't you > have > a single file like sources.list in ubuntu/debian for managing repositories. Possibly because these repository config files could come from different sources (created manually, placed by configuration management tools like puppet/func, etc). I don't myself have the answer to this and we may need to understand the rationale for this based on upcoming discussions with the rpm community. But as a sysadmin, I like this notion of separate files for separate repositories, since it lets me enable and disable specific repositories by simply moving the file in or out of the directory, rather than by having to edit the file. >> >> Deb >> - We may explore this too >> - Nexenta have done good work here >> - Debian Community's opposition in the past is a matter of concern. >> ? ? ? ?- Need clarity on their position. >> ? ? ? ?- Need to make time and interact with the Debian community >> > One of the best pkg managers. extremely fast and user friendly. So i > would really suggest to seriously consider deb as package manager. Nexenta have done good work on this by adding Solaris-awareness, but the conversations that I've seen between the Debian and the Nexenta team have not been very positive. Some Debian community members have been negative about Nexenta's work. However, that was in the past, and we certainly need to find out the present day status as well as the Debian community's position on this matter. This is very much an action item. > Plus > nexenta has ported good amount of packages, so less re-work to be done. I'd rather stick to the spec files and the work done by the Fedora community in maintaining stability. During various discussions of the year or two, we've on occasion considered using Nexenta's package work, but want to hold that off for some more time, since we're not very comfortable with simply using upstream Ubuntu. >> IPS >> We do not want to go with IPS because: >> - No point in reinventing the wheel >> >> Other formats and package managers >> - ebuilds, pacman > > ebuilds system like in gentoo is also good, but slow in installation as > compilation of packages takes time. also necessity of internet > connection. people generally don't have patience especially developers. > there would be some who would like to wait and compile but it's a matter > of choice. if there is some critical time constraint work that needs to > be completed asap, i would rather prefer a binary pkg mgr, which would > just install the req. stuff lighting fast and may be configure the > services with the user friendly standard defaults. > +1 from me to your thoughts. > > Another point to consider is that in India, people still have limited > access to net. so it would be better if the distro has all the necessary > stuff that is needed and if not then it should be easy to just download > the stuff from the net and install it to the system. +1. We need to have a close look at each and every package that goes into the CD. An entirely separate discussion would be : CD or DVD ? :) >> >> -- Sriram > > > Regds, > Arun. > >
