I am working on a project that requires EPEL RPMs as part of the installation process. We also need to support environments where the target machines are disconnected from the Internet. My question is, how would you (the EPEL maintainers) prefer to have these packages distributed? Here are the options as I see them:
1. Include the needed EPEL RPMS on our distribution media. 2. Include the epel-release RPM only and provide instructions for setting up a local EPEL mirror and modifying the epel.repo file to point to that local mirror.
We will certainly give credit to the EPEL project in our documentation and clearly indicate which RPMS are pulled from EPEL regardless of how we distribute things.
Let me know if anyone here has an opinion on this topic.
Thanks,
Perry
On 31.10.2007 16:14, Perry N. Myers wrote:
I am working on a project that requires EPEL RPMs as part of the installation process.
Sounds interesting.
/me wonders what this exatly is about, but I suppose you'll tell us sooner or later.
We also need to support environments where the target machines are disconnected from the Internet. My question is, how would you (the EPEL maintainers) prefer to have these packages distributed? Here are the options as I see them:
- Include the needed EPEL RPMS on our distribution media.
- Include the epel-release RPM only and provide instructions for setting up a
local EPEL mirror and modifying the epel.repo file to point to that local mirror.
Hmmm, why not simply do both? E.g. the epel-packages as part of your distribution media including the repo files for epel. Then users get (security) updates when EPEL releases them. And those that want the packages locally can set up a local epel mirror.
We will certainly give credit to the EPEL project [...]
thx
Cu knurd
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.10.2007 16:14, Perry N. Myers wrote:
I am working on a project that requires EPEL RPMs as part of the installation process.
Sounds interesting.
/me wonders what this exatly is about, but I suppose you'll tell us sooner or later.
The details of what we're doing are still under wraps, but there is work underway to make things more public. :)
We also need to support environments where the target machines are disconnected from the Internet. My question is, how would you (the EPEL maintainers) prefer to have these packages distributed? Here are the options as I see them:
- Include the needed EPEL RPMS on our distribution media.
- Include the epel-release RPM only and provide instructions for setting up a
local EPEL mirror and modifying the epel.repo file to point to that local mirror.
Hmmm, why not simply do both? E.g. the epel-packages as part of your distribution media including the repo files for epel. Then users get (security) updates when EPEL releases them. And those that want the packages locally can set up a local epel mirror.
That sounds good to me.
Thanks for the feedback.
Perry
On 11/1/07, Perry N. Myers pmyers@redhat.com wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.10.2007 16:14, Perry N. Myers wrote:
I am working on a project that requires EPEL RPMs as part of the installation process.
Sounds interesting.
/me wonders what this exatly is about, but I suppose you'll tell us sooner or later.
The details of what we're doing are still under wraps, but there is work underway to make things more public. :)
Yes you heard it here folks! Red Hat will be unveiling a new Enterprise Service, you package for us! If you can do the following, you will be paid 25 RH Air-miles redeemable at RH partners listed soon:
1) Get a set of software into an RPM 2) Get that RPM past the Fedora Package Ghouls who will hunt down any problems and devour you, your family, and any close friends depending on the number of problems in the package. 3) Get that package to compile on EL-4/EL-5 and pas the EPEL Package Werewolves who are more choosy than the Ghouls, but will not stop at sucking the marrow from your bones.
If you can do that, you will get 25 RH Air-miles for every release that this software works on. You will further be paid more airmiles if this package is used by one of our customers and needs fixes or updates.
Join NOW!
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 21:26 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 31.10.2007 16:14, Perry N. Myers wrote:
I am working on a project that requires EPEL RPMs as part of the installation process.
Sounds interesting.
/me wonders what this exatly is about, but I suppose you'll tell us sooner or later.
It's nothing too exciting from an EPEL perspective - some packages for RHEL on an ISO, but those packages require one or two EPEL packages.
The problem Perry is talking about is that it's not much use giving someone an ISO to install from if they still have to have network to install the deps from EPEL.
Basically the only obvious solution is to include the EPEL packages on the the ISO too, but does anybody have any better ideas?
One thing that might be cool is if EPEL itself built ISOs with all its packages and we could just point people who want network-less install at that ISO?
(I guess it's a similar notion to an Everything ISO for Fedora ... I've lost track of what happened to that idea)
Cheers, Mark.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:05:57PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
(I guess it's a similar notion to an Everything ISO for Fedora ... I've lost track of what happened to that idea)
It is distributed in bittorrent unless I am wrong. But EPEL+RHEL is not the same than 'Everything ISO for Fedora' since 'Everything ISO for Fedora' only happened in a merged world. I guess that you can use the fedora compose tool to do the same for RHEL+EPEL (it is called pungi, if this hasn't changed).
-- Pat
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 16:09 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:05:57PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
(I guess it's a similar notion to an Everything ISO for Fedora ... I'velost track of what happened to that idea)
It is distributed in bittorrent unless I am wrong. But EPEL+RHEL is not the same than 'Everything ISO for Fedora' since 'Everything ISO for Fedora' only happened in a merged world. I guess that you can use the fedora compose tool to do the same for RHEL+EPEL (it is called pungi, if this hasn't changed).
Fair enough :-)
What I'm suggesting for EPEL is more like a Fedora Extras ISO in the pre-merged world, then ...
Cheers, Mark.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:15:07PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
What I'm suggesting for EPEL is more like a Fedora Extras ISO in the pre-merged world, then ...
I remember that somebody did that at one point, but I don't remember who and how. Nor do I know how well it was integrated with fedora code.
But do you want to have this iso known in anaconda? I think that if it is the case you need pungi. But I am not an expert about that question either.
-- Pat
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 04:18:26PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:15:07PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
What I'm suggesting for EPEL is more like a Fedora Extras ISO in the pre-merged world, then ...
I remember that somebody did that at one point, but I don't remember who and how. Nor do I know how well it was integrated with fedora code.
I meant 'how well it was integrated with fedora Core.'
-- Pat
On 02.11.2007 16:18, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:15:07PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
What I'm suggesting for EPEL is more like a Fedora Extras ISO in the pre-merged world, then ...
I remember that somebody did that at one point, but I don't remember who and how.
Likely via the "install additional media" in firstboot, which afaik could be used for this.
But well, lots of EPEL packages require parts of the core-os (EL in this case) -- those are not available easily at that point for if user if he didn't yet register his system on RHN.
CU thl
On 11/2/07, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 02.11.2007 16:18, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:15:07PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
What I'm suggesting for EPEL is more like a Fedora Extras ISO in thepre-merged world, then ...
I remember that somebody did that at one point, but I don't remember who and how.
Likely via the "install additional media" in firstboot, which afaik could be used for this.
But well, lots of EPEL packages require parts of the core-os (EL in this case) -- those are not available easily at that point for if user if he didn't yet register his system on RHN.
Which is why everything should be built against Fedora Enterprise(TM). Fedora Enterprise a library of packages from an upstream provider put into a format that other organizations can rebuild cleanly with their own patches. Yes with Fedora Enterprise(TM) you can build your own Oracle(TM) spin of EL without problems
On 11/2/07, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/2/07, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 02.11.2007 16:18, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 03:15:07PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
What I'm suggesting for EPEL is more like a Fedora Extras ISO in thepre-merged world, then ...
I remember that somebody did that at one point, but I don't remember who and how.
Likely via the "install additional media" in firstboot, which afaik could be used for this.
But well, lots of EPEL packages require parts of the core-os (EL in this case) -- those are not available easily at that point for if user if he didn't yet register his system on RHN.
Which is why everything should be built against Fedora Enterprise(TM). Fedora Enterprise a library of packages from an upstream provider put into a format that other organizations can rebuild cleanly with their own patches. Yes with Fedora Enterprise(TM) you can build your own Oracle(TM) spin of EL without problems
Sorry meant to be humourous.. however my coworkers reminded me that I seem to have left my sense of humour at home today.
-- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Mark McLoughlin -
Patrice Dumas -
Perry Myers -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Thorsten Leemhuis