> Our current thinking is to make the following distribution formats > available: > > 1) "s390" (31 bit) architecture LSB 3.0 compatible RPM > 2) "s390x" (64 bit) architecture LSB 3.0 compatible RPM > 3) source rpm > 4) source tarball
Good! Thanks for allowing the tarballs. You should also test on Debian, which has a fair following on Z. > 1) RHEL 3.x is not LSB 3.0 compatible, whereas RHEL 4.2+ and SLE 9.3+ are. > Would this affect a significant portion of the current zLinux installed > population? Unlikely. RH has a much smaller customer footprint on Z than on other platforms. There weren't ever very many RHEL3 customers, and I'd hazard that most of them have a) moved to SuSE or b) moved to RHEL4 long ago. It's probably also fairly safe to prereq SLES9 or higher; there are a fair number of SLES8 systems still circulating, but it's not likely to get a lot of new traffic. > Are there problems with LSB3.0 support on zSeries linux distros that we > aren't aware of? Not if you prereq the above levels. > 2) For non-LSB3.0 environments, we would have instructions on how to do > a source RPM install > or a source tarball "make/make install". > Even though the build is simple, will this be a issue with some z Linux > customers? Of course it will -- but it would on any platform. No difference here. It is probably worth the effort to do a autoconf configuration script, though. > Based on feedback, we can really decide to ship the package formats that > users seem to want/need, > but we would *really* like to keep the binary packages to a small number. > We would like to be able to use a single zLinux image to build binary > packages. While you *could* do that, I think you'll find that you'll need at least one RH and one SuSE guest, and you'll need to build the packages independently on both. There are still some small and subtle differences in the way RPMs are built on the different distributions, and you'll need the separate guests to test the installs anyway. > It would be *ideal* for us to just ship source packages, but our > intuition is that no matter how simple the > build process, some customers will only want binaries (the opposite of > my preference :-) Good thinking. You're probably correct; most folks here tend to the minimalist installs, which wouldn't have development tool chains. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
