On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:48:11 +0100, James Tunnicliffe <james.tunnicli...@linaro.org> wrote: > A couple more observations: > > First we have duplication of hardware packs, but not the checksum > files and GPG signatures to go with them. The hardware packs are > hardware, not distribution specific, so it is difficult to justify to > have them in multiple locations. I imagine that this structure was > designed to put everything in one directory that someone may need to > get up and running with a Linaro distribution, but if they want to > check their hardware packs are signed and correctly downloaded they > still need to visit the hwpacks directory.
I think that if we are going to put the hwpacks in every directory then the other files should be there too. I don't think it's a good idea to do this, as it implies that hwpack are rootfs specific, when they aren't. That ship seems to have sailed though. > Second we are still using > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n. I thought we had done > away with the lettered naming convention to go with the date based > ones. > > To index the releases server automatically I need a predictable file > structure. I don't mind what it is, as long as we stick to it. My > suggestion is: > > All OS binaries structured as: > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/[release]/[distribution name]/[milestone]/ > > Hardware packs all in one place: > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/[release]/hwpacks/[milestone]/ What's the release/milestone distinction here? I think that the only thing not considered here is multiple versions of a single rootfs or hwpack. We are currently generating both natty-based and oneiric-based rootfs. I don't know if we plan to release both ever, or if oneiric-based is just snapshots for now, and we will switch one month to release the oneiric-based and not release the natty-based. If someone could clarify the intent here it will help us decide if the hierarchy needs to accommodate that too. > If we would like to have hardware packs closer to the distributions, > we have a problem of the hwpack directory being rather large - copying > it into each distribution would make it more difficult to find the > right files. This problem does go away completely if we automate the > downloading of files for the user, which we now do with > linaro-fetch-image[-ui]. Yes. We can do both and use symlinks though :-) > I personally find it unnecessary to have separate directories for the > linaro evaluation builds. The Ubuntu desktop and LEB builds seem to be > identical (the md5sums files match at least!). Since we can link to > specific places on the releases server in a release note, why not just > link to the ubuntu-desktop directory? If we want to separate out > Linaro Evaluation Builds we could have a structure like: > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/linaro-evaluation-builds/ubuntu-desktop/release-candidate/ > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/community-supported/alip/release-candidate/ > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/11.07/hwpacks/release-candidate/ My guess is that Alexander will want something like this to maintain that separation. > I can see why > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/ubuntu/leb-panda/latest/ > exists, but I believe it is obsolete with the release of > linaro-fetch-image or linaro-fetch-image-ui, which automate the whole > download and install process. Those tools don't support Android builds > yet though. In another twist though the Android builds exist in a > third directory structure! > http://releases.linaro.org/platform/linaro-n/android/11.07/panda/ > > Clearly this makes it easy for people with a panda board to get the > files they need to run Android on it. The files seem to be unique, so > it looks like it can be left alone, other than getting rid of the > linaro-n. It seems like these should fit in to your proposed structure above, with an image name of "android" or similar? > It should be simple enough to script copying the files from > snapshots.linaro.org over to releases for the non-Android builds. I am > happy to put together something like: > create-linaro-release --source-snapshot YYMMDD:build --relese-type > <alpha/beta/eac/rc/final> --relase-name <YY.MM> While this is a good idea, I don't think it's organised enough to be done all at once right now. Builds are currently copied in chunks as they are ready. While a script might be useful let's not make it a focus of this discussion. If the RMs want a script we can write it, but let's first decide on a layout. Thanks, James _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
