Partial PLD ftp server mirror

[Dirk Ullrich]

Hi, PLD users

I want to install PLD on several machines not connected to internet yet.
To do so I would like t create a partial mirror of the PLD ftp server on a
external hard disk at another, networked machine. Zhe I could install
PLD using the PLD rescue CD and this partial PLD mirror. Which directories
I have to mirror to, say, install PLD 3.0 on a i686 machine, and have the
RPM sources available, too? I guess I need:

dists
|--- 3.0
|--- PLD
|---SRPMS
| |---RPMS
|
|---i686
| |---RPMS
|
|---noarch
|---RPMS

Is this correct?
Another related question: Although APT is mentioned as PLD package
manager, too it seems that then PLD server only supports APT for PLD
versions < 2.0. Or can I use APT to install PLD 2.0 / 3.0 using the
standard PLD ftp server too?

Dirk

[Marcin Król]

Post by Dirk Ullrich
I want to install PLD on several machines not connected to internet yet.
To do so I would like t create a partial mirror of the PLD ftp server on a
external hard disk at another, networked machine. Zhe I could install
PLD using the PLD rescue CD and this partial PLD mirror. Which directories
I have to mirror to, say, install PLD 3.0 on a i686 machine, and have the

Hello.

I'm not sure about PLD 3.0 (I'm not using it yet, its in very early
stage of developement) but for PLD 2.0 you will only need following tree:

dists
|--- 2.0
|--- PLD
|
|---i686 (or other arch you are going to use)
|---RPMS

If you wish to use PLD on production machines I strongly recommend
version 2.0. It is in RC stage but it is really stable. If you'll go for
3.0 keep in mind that not all software is available for it and you may
expect major changes in this line.

Post by Dirk Ullrich
Another related question: Although APT is mentioned as PLD package
manager, too it seems that then PLD server only supports APT for PLD
versions < 2.0. Or can I use APT to install PLD 2.0 / 3.0 using the
standard PLD ftp server too?

APT is only available for PLD 1.0. But if you'll use poldek for lets say
one month you will love it :)

M.

[Liliana Ziołek]

Hello Marcin,

Post by Marcin Król
If you wish to use PLD on production machines I strongly recommend
version 2.0. It is in RC stage but it is really stable. If you'll go for
3.0 keep in mind that not all software is available for it and you may
expect major changes in this line.

I completely agree. Especially for a new PLD user that has to get used
to PLD specific issues I think 2.0 (AC) would be much better.

Post by Marcin Król
APT is only available for PLD 1.0. But if you'll use poldek for lets say
one month you will love it :)

One week will be enough in my opinion ;)

[Dirk Ullrich]

Post by Liliana Ziołek
Hello Marcin,

Post by Marcin Król
If you wish to use PLD on production machines I strongly recommend
version 2.0. It is in RC stage but it is really stable. If you'll go for
3.0 keep in mind that not all software is available for it and you may
expect major changes in this line.

I completely agree. Especially for a new PLD user that has to get used
to PLD specific issues I think 2.0 (AC) would be much better.

I do not plan to deploy PLD to production machines yet. (Those maschines
run Debian or CRUX which I appily used for years now.) I simply want to learn
another Linux distro--and an RPM-based one this time. I have looked at
(and used) some other RPM-based distros for some time now--namely SuSE
and Redhat. But I did not'fall in love' with those distros. A big issue I
always disliked are the huge RPM pakages: I am used (mainly caused by
using Debian) to much more fine grained approach. And Im very pleased to
see the 'small is beautiful' approach to packaging in PLD, too.
So I want learn PLD to satisfy my needs of curiosity and adventure. (Until
recently those needs were fully satisfied by running Debian unstable. But at
the moment it becomes more and more stable :-( ...) And on the maschines
I would try PLD there is always (at least) another Linux distro running. I am
prepared to spend some days of hardest work and inquiry to get even a
minimal PLD system running. If I will fail I will give PLD 2.0 a try
before throwing
anything out of the window :-) Or would you say that there is at the moment
absolutely now way to get even a tiny PLD 3.0 system up and running?

Post by Liliana Ziołek

Post by Marcin Król
APT is only available for PLD 1.0. But if you'll use poldek for lets say
one month you will love it :)

One week will be enough in my opinion ;)

Okay, why not trying poldek right from the beginning even when being used
to APT (both for deb and rpm)?

Dirk

[Marcin Chojnowski]

Post by Dirk Ullrich
Okay, why not trying poldek right from the beginning even when being used
to APT (both for deb and rpm)?

There is almost no difference. About year ago I moved from PLD to
Debian and there is almost no difference in using apt or poldek.

Poldek is little bit nicer, has more options and interactive mode. Huge
future are incremental updates but who cares when DSL is so popular now.

But using apt or poldek is almost the same.

Martin

[Liliana Ziołek]

Hello Dirk,

Post by Dirk Ullrich
I am
prepared to spend some days of hardest work and inquiry to get even a
minimal PLD system running. If I will fail I will give PLD 2.0 a try
before throwing anything out of the window :-) Or would you say that
there is at the moment absolutely now way to get even a tiny PLD 3.0
system up and running?

Well, there are people who are running TH (PLD 3.0) but
- most of them are developers (well, actually that's true generally
for most of PLD users ;) )
- still you have to have some packages from AC

Of course with time we get more and more people running TH, but
personally I didn't have enough courage to switch yet ;)

Actually, you'd have to know what TH can give you that AC won't and
decide if you really want/need it. AC is definitely better tested,
probably still has more users and probably all TH users used AC before
- so you'll get help easier. But of course TH is also usable, you'd
have to wait for opinions from people currently using it to have the
whole picture and then decide.

PS. I'm not sure how many people are reading users-en. If you don't
get enough answers you might want to try also devel-en. In polish
groups devel is a little bit more popular.

[Dirk Ullrich]

Hi,

thank you for all your helpful suggestions concerning poldek and choosing
between PLD 2.0 and 3.0. Now I am not afraid to start with poldek, and I am
prepared to use 2.0 instead of 3.0 if will run in big trouble with 3.0.

But since one of my original questions is still open I would like to
ask it again:
I wan to install PLD (2.0 or 3.0) on i668 machines using the PLD rescue CD
(verison 2.0) and a partial mirror of the PLD ftp server on hard disk.
Furthermore I want have the SRPMs available too. It is sufficient to mirror
the following subdirectories for 2.0:

dists
|--- 2.0
|--- PLD
|---SRPMS
| |---SRPMS
|
|---i686
|---PLD
|---RPMS

and the following folders for 3.0:

dists
|--- 3.0
|--- PLD
|---SRPMS
| |---RPMS
|
|---i686
| |---RPMS
|
|---noarch
|---RPMS

Post by Liliana Ziołek
PS. I'm not sure how many people are reading users-en. If you don't
get enough answers you might want to try also devel-en. In polish
groups devel is a little bit more popular.
--
Best regards,
Liliana mailto:liliana.ziolek at gmail.com

Until now I was a little bit afraid to ask such installation-related questions
at a devel mailing list. But it is good to know that it would be a reasonable
second try.

Dirk

[Radoslaw Zielinski]

Dirk Ullrich <dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com> [26-06-2006 17:22]:
[...]

Post by Dirk Ullrich
Furthermore I want have the SRPMs available too. It is sufficient to mirror

[...]

Yes.
[...]

Yes.

But, in both cases, you might want to mirror the corresponding ready and
test directories.

If you're serious about Th, I'd suggest getting familiar with building
from CVS using the builder script -- a lot of packages is missing.

Post by Dirk Ullrich

Post by Liliana Ziołek
PS. I'm not sure how many people are reading users-en. If you don't
get enough answers you might want to try also devel-en. In polish
groups devel is a little bit more popular.

Until now I was a little bit afraid to ask such installation-related questions
at a devel mailing list. But it is good to know that it would be a reasonable
second try.

I don't think it's a good idea to bring whatever belongs to -users to
-devel, no matter if it's -pl or -en.

[Marek Guevara Braun]

Post by Radoslaw Zielinski
If you're serious about Th, I'd suggest getting familiar with building
from CVS using the builder script -- a lot of packages is missing.

For Ac (aka 2.0) I would suggest builder stuff too. There is plenty of
stuff in our CVS repository which are not on the ftp servers (for
various reasons).

Generally preparing/building of a package looks like running
./builder -ba package.spec
(inside ~/rpm/SPECS)

It produces binary packages in ~/rpm/RPMS and source package in
~/rpm/SRPMS - you can prepare poldek index with poldek --mkidx
and export the RPMS dir with ftp or http for use by other computers.

I think that we should have some docs about preparing builder
enviromnemt, but i'm not sure do we have an eng. version.

Regards,
Marek

[Piotr Maciej Kabata]

Post by Liliana Ziołek
Hello Dirk,
Well, there are people who are running TH (PLD 3.0) but
- most of them are developers (well, actually that's true generally
for most of PLD users ;) )
- still you have to have some packages from AC

Hello, I'm running TH, and I am certainly not a developer (yet at least)
due to my lacks of skills (partially) and time (mostly)
But the fact is that you have to either use packages from AC (I do so as
I'm migrating to TH since the beginning of the TH line) or build them
from CVS (I prefer this way since I have learnt how to do so) - and this
way may be much easier if You are starting from TH in the beginning.

best greetings

kabasny