 |
 |
Owen has my vote. owen maroney wrote: > Burke, S (Stephen) wrote: > >> LHC Computer Grid - Rollout >> >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ake said: >>> No you publish a RE for a particular application(class) possibly >>> particular to a VO) that guarantees that the neccesary things are there. >> >> >> >> But that doesn't address the original issue of having a large list of >> RPMs. The number of general client classes is pretty small: basically we >> have clients for the WMS, data management, information system, VOMS and >> globus, all of which are going to be needed on a standard grid site, so >> that doesn't get you anywhere in terms of reducing the RPM count. > > > OK, so there are a number of rpm's which will provide these client > libraries/tools. All/most of these rpm's should be starting with edg, > lcg or vdt, I'd have guessed. > > But this just begs a reformulation of the original question why is the > list of rpm dependancies in the lcg_WN including so many rpms that do > not start with edg, lcg or vdt? (and are all those edg,lcg,vdt rpms > really needed or does it, perhaps, just seem easier to install the lot > but only configure what's needed? :-0 ) > > If any of these grid client tools (say, lcg-do-something-nice) need a > specific xml parser (for example), then that ought to be a dependancy > with the rpm that supplies the lcg-do-something-nice. It shouldn't need > to be an explicit dependancy within lcg_WN, as it is the point of the > lcg_WN rpm is that it is supplied to a tool like apt/yum/up2date and > that tool resolves all the implicit dependancies itself. > > So if the xml parser is an explicit dependancy in the lcg_WN rpm, either: > > 1 - that explicit dependancy is unnecessary. It is an implicit > dependancy in one of the contained rpms; > > 2 - or it is a requirement of one of the client tool rpms but that rpm > is not properly made and doesn't provide a proper list of its own > dependant rpms; > > 3 - or it isn't actually a dependancy of any of the needed client rpms, > someone included it in the list once because they found it useful to > have around, and it's just never been removed... > > Clearly in case 1 or 3, it ought to be removed from lcg_WN! In case 2 > it the badly packaged client tool rpm ought to be fixed, and then it > should be removed. > > In the end, the only thing that should be in lcg_WN (or any other of the > meta-rpms) is probably a half dozen meta-rpm's themselves, each > corresponding to a particular set of client tools that is required on > the WN. Everthing else that gets installed should be because they are a > clear dependancy of one of these well defined client tools. > > cheers, > Owen.