RPMS and REPOS and REPO-Linkages

When an rpm is built for CentOS-Extras or CentOS-Plus, is it
safe to 
assume that people using these repo's only use them for
specific rpms ( 
eg, someone with a stock CentOS install might use the
CentOS-Plus repo 
for php-5 and only php-5 ) or are most people enabling the
entire repo ?

This question comes from the idea of when building a
package, should a 
rpm, hosted in CentOS-Plus link against only
[base]+[updates] and only 
use the minimum possible set of packages from [centosplus] ?
So as to 
have a situation wherein you can use selective packages from

CentOS-Plus, while not needing any support stuff from there
( eg. 
postfix-mysql in CentOS-Plus should link against mysql-4.1
since thats 
whats in [base] rather than mysql-5 which is in CentOS Plus
)

This does create a risk that we might end up creating
packages that are 
themselves incompatible with other packages from the same
repository, 
but work fine when used with the [base] packages for the
same functionality.

The other option is to have the entire CentOS-Plus repo
enabled for any 
packages built for the same repo, which might mean that
using php-5 from 
  CentOS-Plus needs MySQL-5 and pgsql-8 from CentOS Plus
also installed.

Comments ?

- KB
-- 
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ :
2522219icq
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 00:05 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> When an rpm is built for CentOS-Extras or CentOS-Plus,
is it safe to 
> assume that people using these repo's only use them for
specific rpms ( 
> eg, someone with a stock CentOS install might use the
CentOS-Plus repo 
> for php-5 and only php-5 ) or are most people enabling
the entire repo ?
> 
> This question comes from the idea of when building a
package, should a 
> rpm, hosted in CentOS-Plus link against only
[base]+[updates] and only 
> use the minimum possible set of packages from
[centosplus] ? So as to 
> have a situation wherein you can use selective packages
from 
> CentOS-Plus, while not needing any support stuff from
there ( eg. 
> postfix-mysql in CentOS-Plus should link against
mysql-4.1 since thats 
> whats in [base] rather than mysql-5 which is in CentOS
Plus )
> 
> This does create a risk that we might end up creating
packages that are 
> themselves incompatible with other packages from the
same repository, 
> but work fine when used with the [base] packages for
the same functionality.
> 
> The other option is to have the entire CentOS-Plus repo
enabled for any 
> packages built for the same repo, which might mean that
using php-5 from 
>   CentOS-Plus needs MySQL-5 and pgsql-8 from CentOS
Plus also installed.
> 

I'd say centos-plus can rely on centos-plus in total and
base+updates.

either you have the repo enabled or you don't. Fence sitters
can just
suffer.

-sv


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

seth vidal wrote:
> I'd say centos-plus can rely on centos-plus in total
and base+updates.
> either you have the repo enabled or you don't. Fence
sitters can just
> suffer.
>   
Then why did you include the "includepkgs" option
in yum 

I use php5 with mysql4, as I'm sure lots of people do, so
I'd rather see 
centosplus stay the same so that option is still available
in the same 
place.

And if/when there is a RHWAS repository at CentOS, then I
think those 
should not be in Centosplus, but a different folder, and I
think those 
should rely on each other.

Greg

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:49 -0800, Greg Swallow wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > I'd say centos-plus can rely on centos-plus in
total and base+updates.
> > either you have the repo enabled or you don't.
Fence sitters can just
> > suffer.
> >   
> Then why did you include the "includepkgs"
option in yum 

mostly to shut users up from whining. 

-sv


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 00:05 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> When an rpm is built for CentOS-Extras or CentOS-Plus,
is it safe to 
> assume that people using these repo's only use them for
specific rpms ( 
> eg, someone with a stock CentOS install might use the
CentOS-Plus repo 
> for php-5 and only php-5 ) or are most people enabling
the entire repo ?
> 
> This question comes from the idea of when building a
package, should a 
> rpm, hosted in CentOS-Plus link against only
[base]+[updates] and only 
> use the minimum possible set of packages from
[centosplus] ? So as to 
> have a situation wherein you can use selective packages
from 
> CentOS-Plus, while not needing any support stuff from
there ( eg. 
> postfix-mysql in CentOS-Plus should link against
mysql-4.1 since thats 
> whats in [base] rather than mysql-5 which is in CentOS
Plus )
> 
> This does create a risk that we might end up creating
packages that are 
> themselves incompatible with other packages from the
same repository, 
> but work fine when used with the [base] packages for
the same functionality.
> 
> The other option is to have the entire CentOS-Plus repo
enabled for any 
> packages built for the same repo, which might mean that
using php-5 from 
>   CentOS-Plus needs MySQL-5 and pgsql-8 from CentOS
Plus also installed.
> 
> Comments ?

Well, it is currently done so that each major grouping of
packages goes
with "base + updates"

By grouping, I mean that some things (php and php-pear as an
example)
can require each other as a group ... no need to try and
make any of
them compatible with another version.

That is how I think we should maintain it, to that maximum
extent
possible ...

We are also making sure (to the max extent possible) that
Items that are
in there also work with backward compatibility (ie, the
mysql5 will also
work with packages are in base and compiled against mysql4).

We have things in CentOSPlus that we don't want people to
use UNLESS
they need it (the mysql_pgsql postfix is an example) ... so
I think that
the packages need to be stand alone and work with "base
+ updates"
individually.

Now, I also understand that SOME packages may need to be
done so that
they are built against the versions in centosplus ... and if
that is the
case, then we need to specify the minimum install
requirements in the
program to make that happen and make sure that is spelled
out in readme
files and/or the wiki.

I personally use parts of CentOSPlus (mysql5,php5) and not
other parts
(no postfix_mysql_pgsql, no kernel / xfs / reiserfs etc.)

I do not think that it should be required that if you use
mysql5 or php5
from centosplus that you also have to use pgsql8 from there
... or if
you use the kernel, we should expect that you should also
use mysql or
php.

I think we need to keep it the way that it currently is and
that
centosplus items are separate to the max extent practical.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 00:05 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> When an rpm is built for CentOS-Extras or CentOS-Plus,
is it safe to 
> assume that people using these repo's only use them for
specific rpms ( 
> eg, someone with a stock CentOS install might use the
CentOS-Plus repo 
> for php-5 and only php-5 ) or are most people enabling
the entire repo ?
> 
> This question comes from the idea of when building a
package, should a 
> rpm, hosted in CentOS-Plus link against only
[base]+[updates] and only 
> use the minimum possible set of packages from
[centosplus] ? So as to 
> have a situation wherein you can use selective packages
from 
> CentOS-Plus, while not needing any support stuff from
there ( eg. 
> postfix-mysql in CentOS-Plus should link against
mysql-4.1 since thats 
> whats in [base] rather than mysql-5 which is in CentOS
Plus )
> 
> This does create a risk that we might end up creating
packages that are 
> themselves incompatible with other packages from the
same repository, 
> but work fine when used with the [base] packages for
the same functionality.
> 
> The other option is to have the entire CentOS-Plus repo
enabled for any 
> packages built for the same repo, which might mean that
using php-5 from 
>   CentOS-Plus needs MySQL-5 and pgsql-8 from CentOS
Plus also installed.
> 
> Comments ?

Well, it is currently done so that each major grouping of
packages goes
with "base + updates"

By grouping, I mean that some things (php and php-pear as an
example)
can require each other as a group ... no need to try and
make any of
them compatible with another version.

That is how I think we should maintain it, to that maximum
extent
possible ...

We are also making sure (to the max extent possible) that
Items that are
in there also work with backward compatibility (ie, the
mysql5 will also
work with packages are in base and compiled against mysql4).

We have things in CentOSPlus that we don't want people to
use UNLESS
they need it (the mysql_pgsql postfix is an example) ... so
I think that
the packages need to be stand alone and work with "base
+ updates"
individually.

Now, I also understand that SOME packages may need to be
done so that
they are built against the versions in centosplus ... and if
that is the
case, then we need to specify the minimum install
requirements in the
program to make that happen and make sure that is spelled
out in readme
files and/or the wiki.

I personally use parts of CentOSPlus (mysql5,php5) and not
other parts
(no postfix_mysql_pgsql, no kernel / xfs / reiserfs etc.)

I do not think that it should be required that if you use
mysql5 or php5
from centosplus that you also have to use pgsql8 from there
... or if
you use the kernel, we should expect that you should also
use mysql or
php.

I think we need to keep it the way that it currently is and
that
centosplus items are separate to the max extent practical.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 at 9:57pm, seth vidal wrote

> On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:49 -0800, Greg Swallow wrote:
>>>
>> Then why did you include the
"includepkgs" option in yum 
>
> mostly to shut users up from whining. 

I though your name was Seth, not Sisyphus...

-- 
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 07:40 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 at 9:57pm, seth vidal wrote
> 
> > On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:49 -0800, Greg Swallow
wrote:
> >>>
> >> Then why did you include the
"includepkgs" option in yum 
> >
> > mostly to shut users up from whining. 
> 
> I though your name was Seth, not Sisyphus...

And that is where you'd be wrong. 


-sv


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 at 7:54am, seth vidal wrote

> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 07:40 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain
wrote:
>>
>> I though your name was Seth, not Sisyphus...
>
> And that is where you'd be wrong. 

And suddenly a great many things became clearer.

-- 
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:54 AM, seth vidal wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 07:40 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain
wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 at 9:57pm, seth vidal wrote
>>
>>> On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:49 -0800, Greg Swallow
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Then why did you include the
"includepkgs" option in yum 
>>>
>>> mostly to shut users up from whining. 
>>
>> I though your name was Seth, not Sisyphus...
>
> And that is where you'd be wrong. 
>

I though skv was "script kiddie vidal". My mistake
...

73 de Jeff

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:31:19AM -0600, Johnny Hughes
enlightened us:
> I think we need to keep it the way that it currently is
and that
> centosplus items are separate to the max extent
practical.

I agree with Johnny here. It's very convenient to be able to
pull in a
newer version of a single package and have it work on top of
an existing
stable system. No need to debug MySQL 5 because I wanted PHP
5.

Matt

-- 
Matt Hyclak
Department of Mathematics 
Department of Social Work
Ohio University
(740) 593-1263
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

> I agree with Johnny here. It's very convenient to be
able to pull in a
> newer version of a single package and have it work on
top of an existing
> stable system. No need to debug MySQL 5 because I
wanted PHP 5.

For individual packages this is the best route, and makes
things work
well for people who just want a more recent package or two.
The down
side is that this isn't always possible, and results in the
repository
itself acting in an inconsistent way. Some packages would be
drop-in
replacements like php or mysql5, while others are not. I
guess it
comes down to aiming for consistent behavior for packages in
a
repository, and finding out if the community is okay with a
certain
amount of disharmony in the repository.

-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 00:05 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> When an rpm is built for CentOS-Extras or CentOS-Plus,
is it safe to 
> assume that people using these repo's only use them for
specific rpms ( 
> eg, someone with a stock CentOS install might use the
CentOS-Plus repo 
> for php-5 and only php-5 ) or are most people enabling
the entire repo ?
> 
> This question comes from the idea of when building a
package, should a 
> rpm, hosted in CentOS-Plus link against only
[base]+[updates] and only 
> use the minimum possible set of packages from
[centosplus] ? So as to 
> have a situation wherein you can use selective packages
from 
> CentOS-Plus, while not needing any support stuff from
there ( eg. 
> postfix-mysql in CentOS-Plus should link against
mysql-4.1 since thats 
> whats in [base] rather than mysql-5 which is in CentOS
Plus )
> 
> This does create a risk that we might end up creating
packages that are 
> themselves incompatible with other packages from the
same repository, 
> but work fine when used with the [base] packages for
the same functionality.
> 
> The other option is to have the entire CentOS-Plus repo
enabled for any 
> packages built for the same repo, which might mean that
using php-5 from 
>   CentOS-Plus needs MySQL-5 and pgsql-8 from CentOS
Plus also installed.
> 
> Comments ?

Well, it is currently done so that each major grouping of
packages goes
with "base + updates"

By grouping, I mean that some things (php and php-pear as an
example)
can require each other as a group ... no need to try and
make any of
them compatible with another version.

That is how I think we should maintain it, to that maximum
extent
possible ...

We are also making sure (to the max extent possible) that
Items that are
in there also work with backward compatibility (ie, the
mysql5 will also
work with packages are in base and compiled against mysql4).

We have things in CentOSPlus that we don't want people to
use UNLESS
they need it (the mysql_pgsql postfix is an example) ... so
I think that
the packages need to be stand alone and work with "base
+ updates"
individually.

Now, I also understand that SOME packages may need to be
done so that
they are built against the versions in centosplus ... and if
that is the
case, then we need to specify the minimum install
requirements in the
program to make that happen and make sure that is spelled
out in readme
files and/or the wiki.

I personally use parts of CentOSPlus (mysql5,php5) and not
other parts
(no postfix_mysql_pgsql, no kernel / xfs / reiserfs etc.)

I do not think that it should be required that if you use
mysql5 or php5
from centosplus that you also have to use pgsql8 from there
... or if
you use the kernel, we should expect that you should also
use mysql or
php.

I think we need to keep it the way that it currently is and
that
centosplus items are separate to the max extent practical.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 at 9:57pm, seth vidal wrote

> On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:49 -0800, Greg Swallow wrote:
>>>
>> Then why did you include the
"includepkgs" option in yum 
>
> mostly to shut users up from whining. 

I though your name was Seth, not Sisyphus...

-- 
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 07:40 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 at 9:57pm, seth vidal wrote
> 
> > On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:49 -0800, Greg Swallow
wrote:
> >>>
> >> Then why did you include the
"includepkgs" option in yum 
> >
> > mostly to shut users up from whining. 
> 
> I though your name was Seth, not Sisyphus...

And that is where you'd be wrong. 


-sv


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 at 7:54am, seth vidal wrote

> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 07:40 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain
wrote:
>>
>> I though your name was Seth, not Sisyphus...
>
> And that is where you'd be wrong. 

And suddenly a great many things became clearer.

-- 
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:54 AM, seth vidal wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 07:40 -0500, Joshua Baker-LePain
wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 at 9:57pm, seth vidal wrote
>>
>>> On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 18:49 -0800, Greg Swallow
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Then why did you include the
"includepkgs" option in yum 
>>>
>>> mostly to shut users up from whining. 
>>
>> I though your name was Seth, not Sisyphus...
>
> And that is where you'd be wrong. 
>

I though skv was "script kiddie vidal". My mistake
...

73 de Jeff

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:31:19AM -0600, Johnny Hughes
enlightened us:
> I think we need to keep it the way that it currently is
and that
> centosplus items are separate to the max extent
practical.

I agree with Johnny here. It's very convenient to be able to
pull in a
newer version of a single package and have it work on top of
an existing
stable system. No need to debug MySQL 5 because I wanted PHP
5.

Matt

-- 
Matt Hyclak
Department of Mathematics 
Department of Social Work
Ohio University
(740) 593-1263
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

> I agree with Johnny here. It's very convenient to be
able to pull in a
> newer version of a single package and have it work on
top of an existing
> stable system. No need to debug MySQL 5 because I
wanted PHP 5.

For individual packages this is the best route, and makes
things work
well for people who just want a more recent package or two.
The down
side is that this isn't always possible, and results in the
repository
itself acting in an inconsistent way. Some packages would be
drop-in
replacements like php or mysql5, while others are not. I
guess it
comes down to aiming for consistent behavior for packages in
a
repository, and finding out if the community is okay with a
certain
amount of disharmony in the repository.

-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Jim Perrin wrote:

>> I agree with Johnny here. It's very convenient to
be able to pull in a
>> newer version of a single package and have it work
on top of an existing
>> stable system. No need to debug MySQL 5 because I
wanted PHP 5.

I can see the need for possibly 2 different repositroies
here to provide 
diferent strokes for different folks :-

maybe

centosplus-base linked against base - usable for people who
only want to 
include particular packages and want them linked against
base + updates.

centosplus - where packages are linked against other
packages in 
centosplus - usable by people who want all the latest &
greatest.

(or centosplus and centosplus-ng - that is up for discussion
)

Once we have the new builder in place it shouldnt be too
much effort to 
provide both.

The same discussion presumably is also merited for what
centos-extras are 
linked against ???

Lance

--
uklinux.net -
The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel