[2695] in Release_7.7_team
Red Hat Linux 7.1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Hudson)
Mon Apr 16 14:13:11 2001
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:13:06 -0400
Message-Id: <200104161813.OAA12745@egyptian-gods.MIT.EDU>
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
To: release-team@mit.edu
Red Hat Linux 7.1 came out today. I think there's still time to use
it. Since Andrew didn't seem to be around, I grabbed the CD images
and will transfer the contents into AFS.
For Red Hat 6.2, we had separate directories under
/afs/dev.mit.edu/system/redhat for the binary and source CD. For 7.0,
we did the same thing, except the RH 7.0 binary CD had some of the
SRPMs on it for space reasons. In RH 7.1, there are two binary CDs
and one source CD (and the second binary CD has some SRPMs on it). We
have two choices I can see:
* We can make redhat-7.1-disc1, redhat-7.1-disc2, and
redhat-7.1-sources, each with the exact CD contents.
* We can make an integrated redhat-7.1 directory. (There is
some file overlap at the top level, involving the files
README, TRANS.TBL, and autorun; nothing we actually use in
the release. There is also COPYING and RPM-GPG-KEY at the
top level of all three CDs, but it's the same in all three.)
I like the latter approach, because it means less poking around to
find RPMs and because we aren't really providing the areas as an
archival service. But it might be considered a little less clean.
(We could also build a symlink farm, but I'd rather not.)
If we do go with the second approach, volume size could become an an
issue. The RPMs together take up 884M, the sources together take up
875M, and the remainder of the CD contents takes up 169M. That's less
balanced than 648MB per CD volume, but could be a bit of an issue.
Speak up if you have an opinion. I'm going to go with the second
approach, but it should be easy to switch gears.
