[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout
andr55 at laposte.net
Fri Dec 10 11:22:09 CET 2010
Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. a écrit :
> Perhaps we should follow the approach other distributions seem to use.
> Official Mageia repos:
> Core: The core Mageia distribution (IMHO, should contain only a very minimal
> instalation (No GUI or Productivity software).
> Desktop: GUI and Productivity software.
> Server: The various server software that would not normally be used on a
> Desktop system.
> Community: Community suppoted GPL software
> Non-Official Mageis repos (optional):
> Non-GPL: Software that is not GPL Licensed
Assume that this means software without ANY free licence. (Such as bsd,
If drivers are included in these repos, and they are optional, many
systems will not function properly with the required repos.
Only Fedora (of the distros mentioned below) has a policy to exclude
non-free software. The others have a separate set of repos for non-free.
> Extra: Software that can not be included in the above categories
Is this for software that is legally constrained in some countries ?
Where would development software (CLI and GUI) go ?
This approach would be advantageous if mirrors were to carry only some
of the repo groups suggested.
If official mirrors must carry all the official repos, it's not clear
the advantage of separating core/desktop/server repos, unless they are
to have different levels of support.
For non-official mirrors, a server-only mirror would be a lot smaller.
Using your definitions :
Mandriva main = Core + Desktop + Server + many development packages
Mandriva contrib = community
Mandriva non-free = most Non-GPL (some of which is in main)
Some legally contrained packages are excluded. Supposedly in PLF.
Debian uses the same names main, contrib, non-free, with explicit policy
close to Mandriva practices.
In the same policy page, they say that patent-contrained software goes
into non-free, then further down they say that it can be excluded.
OpenSuse has supported oss (free) and non-oss (non-free); as well as
Corresponding to the repos of Mandriva.
Ubuntu has 4 repo groups, essentially free and non-free, each divided
into supported and unsupported.
They seem to permit contrained packages.
Fedora package acceptance policy is explicitly dictated by RedHat.
Includes only free packages (thus excluding redistributable drivers),
plus excludes legally constrained packages.
Fedora is the only distro reviewed here which does not accept non-free
However, given that RedHat sells their versions of Linux (with support),
one could question the motivation of the Fedora policy.
> Since I am not knowlegable about running an FTP mirror, I do not know whether
> it is best to put these listings under a single tree, or to split them into
> two trees, but if we split them, perhaps we could approach PLF to host the
> Non-officvial repos?
Note that FTP would only be used for end-users downloading FROM mirrors.
Mageia will require official mirrors to synchronize at regular intervals
using rsync + certain options.
For mirrors which want to include everything, it is obviously simpler to
have a single tree, requiring a single simple rsync line.
However a second simple rsync line isn't that complicated.
For mirrors which wish to exclude the optional parts, the choice is
between one simple rsync line (if 2 trees), or a more complex line
adding an option to exclude each unwanted part of the of the source tree.
(With the complication that an error in specifying this option could
cause problems with the mirroring.
Using PLF for mirroring constrained packages sounds like a very good
idea. Their site says that they are open to hosting such packages for
all distros, as long as there are volonteers to support the packages.
And since Mageia is (at least initially) compatible with Mandriva, their
page "easyurpmi" could be easily modified to set up mirror sources for
Mageia users. (Call our version "easymageia" ?)
Using PLF for contrained packages offers a plus for mirror sites willing
to host such packages.
They need only mirror one PLF tree for all distros - be it Mandriva,
Unity, or Mageia.
Interestingly, in a search for all packages containing "codec" or "mp"
(for mpeg) in the name, I found only 2 packages in PLF that weren't
already in Mandriva : one being quotations from the Simpsons, which the
package said was there for copyright reasons.
All the other PLF packages I found in the above searches were in
Many if not all of which were in PLF for patent reasons, according to
the package description.
Which brings up a difference of PLF packages : the PLF description
usually ends with a line specifying why they are there. (At least
packages destined for Mandriva users.)
So if a user wants to avoid patent constrained packages, they are
identified as such in PLF - but not in Mandriva.
> This is only a suggestion (and we may have already moved past this point), but
> perhaps this will let us be more flexible to the end users (both DeskTop and
For that point, end users could also use the install routines on the
distribution media, or the (rpm) package categories, to selectively
install Desktop and/or server packages. Both of which could use
But the suggestion regarding PLF is interesting ...
my 2 cents :)
More information about the Mageia-dev