[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Default Groups, Default Packages, CD Sets and DVD Size
- From: Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip kanarip com>
- To: Development discussions related to Fedora <fedora-devel-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Default Groups, Default Packages, CD Sets and DVD Size
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:38:52 +0200
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:40 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
However, the default installation requires all 7 CDs, because of how the
compose tools resolve dependencies (inclusive) during the compose of the
media, and pull in more then is minimally required to complete the
actual transaction of a default installation. The compose tools do so
for good reason:
- one cannot know what package is the user-preferred package for any
given required capability (eg. for fictive capability 'web-client',
there's firefox, iceweasel, elinks, wget, curl, emacs, emacs, emacs,
foo, bar and baz)
- one cannot predict on what installed system one is performing an
upgrade, and to be able to close the transaction certain considerations
must be met justifying the need for inclusive dependency resolving when
composing the media (set) or installation tree.
- it makes the released media apply to N+X use-cases where the package
set or transaction payload during the installation is controlled in a
more granular fashion then the selection dialogs allow (by means of a
kickstart package manifest maybe?), which I guess applies more to
businesses or advanced users using Fedora then it does to Joe Average users.
Basically what I'm saying is that the 2.88 GB is spread over more then
the minimal amount of discs it would fit on, since the complete package
payload when using inclusive dependency resolving grows to 3.66 GB, or 7
discs. So, the compose process spits out 7 discs, each of which contain
a part of the 2.88 GB sized RPM payload needed for a default installation.
I've been playing a bit in this area, and noticed that if I make one
small change to pkgorder, at least on i386, a default 'next next next'
install based on a compose done with the Fedora config and it only needs
the first 3 media. This isn't bad really, given the growth of the
I'm extremely curious what the change is as I've been digging through
this for hours.
== Next Generation of Package Ordering ==
So, what package ordering is going to do -instead of having a static
list of groups to add to a transaction, resolve, spit out the packages-
is use the "default" parameter to groups in comps.xml as well (and then
instead of exclusive dependency resolving like it does now, move to
inclusive dependency resolving as well). This makes the "which packages
and groups are in a default installation" a little less hard to maintain
and the package ordering will almost automagically match up with
comps.xml (of which the installation procedure also uses the default
parameter to groups!)
Hrm, I hadn't thought about applying inclusive depsolving (or
depresolving as I call it) here. That could have some interesting
effects and warrants some investigation.
I've done this investigation and I found the following:
Put to extremes, just to get the point across without nitpicking
percentages, in principle the inclusive dependency resolving during
package ordering results in a "tighter" set of packages on, say, disc
1-3, including the packages not used by a default install, but
potentially used by a relatively large number of non-default installs
and upgrades, whereas using exclusive dependency resolving during
package ordering supposedly stuffs the default install onto a minimal
number of discs (say, 1 & 2), but you might need disc 5, 6 & 7 if you
make a small change in what is going to be installed.
== Advise needed ==
There's several ways this can be solved, but I'm not sure what is the
most advisable (some are not feasible I'm sure, I'm just brainstorming
1) reduce the number of mandatory and default packages per group in
This is a great start, something that hasn't really been done outside of
core/base recently that I'm aware of.
2) reduce the number of groups in comps.xml that have "default" set to True
This one is going to be a bit tougher to get people to agree upon I'd
imagine, but I'm willing to give it a go.
Do we know, per group or overall, who can do this?
3) Revisit how comps is formatted; Example: Keep the "default" for
compose decisions, but add an "install" attribute for installation
decision making. Install set to True may require default set to True as
well for the group to even be included on the media.
What exactly does this accomplish?
Having "defaults" included on the media but having "installs" being
selected by the installation procedure so that the compose process can
put them on the first few discs. Does that make sense? It still requires
reducing the groups installed by default though.
4) Split the packages that are mandatory or default in comps groups,
into smaller packages providing what the group needs and another set of
smaller packages belonging to the group as to reduce the number of
dependencies needing to be met when the compose or installation
procedure selects a group. See also PS2.
5) Or, compared to 4, revisit the Requires in mandatory and default
packages and the Provides in the packages that provide the required
capabilities so that it abstracts from the requires/provides matching
with too many other packages (related to the inclusive dependency
resolving which will then make for a thinner RPM payload on the composed
This is probably a more interesting case, something that we want to do
for folks like OLPC as well.
6) Have the compose tools as well as the installation procedures not
depend on the default attribute to groups anymore, at all.
What does this accomplish?
Not so much it'd sorta obsolete the default attribute (iirc the
compose/ordering/install is the very purpose of the default attr. isn't
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]