Here's a list (taken straight from the packagecd specfile for i686) of packages available on the packages.iso for x86: grp/cd2/packages: xorg-x11 gentoo-sources irssi gpm parted links dosfstools ntfsprogs screen mirrorselect vim xscreensaver ide-smart netcat gpart gnupg sys-apps/eject minicom whois tcpdump cvs zip unzip partimage app-admin/sudo app-cdr/cdrtools gnome emacs dev-lang/ruby enlightenment kde-meta mozilla-firefox mozilla-thunderbird xfce4 openbox fluxbox sylpheed openoffice-bin xemacs xmms abiword gaim xchat pan tetex k3b koffice samba nmap gradm ettercap mplayer note that lists isn't a complete listing since deps of these packages are not listed This is just to give people an idea on what they can emerge off the packages iso. Note this list is for the x86 arches only, other arches will have different GRP packages. The idea is to give some examples on what users can emerge off the packages iso. feel free to add explanations to the packages, I know that it is a significant amount of work as this is per arch, but I believe it to be worth it nonetheless. Roger
Err, no. But I wouldn't mind linking to a CONTENT file of the Packages CD ;) It is not only a huge amount of work, it's also a huge amount of work for every release.
Either link to CONTENT or just ask them to do `ls` or both...
If all CDs had a list of available applications in a text file, hopefully with the same name and at the same location across arches, we'd be happy to mention it, but we're not going to maintain this information in the handbooks themselves.
This wouldn't be especially useful in the future as we are working to move away from the PackageCD concept and instead to the Installer. The Installer lists the packages on the CD, making it easy for users to choose. I would say in the mean time, a link to the CONTENTS file (or a copy of it) would be sufficient. After all, the list from the spec files is grossly incomplete. If a user didn't know that evolution was a dependency of gnome, they would never know that evolution is on the CD.
(In reply to comment #4) > This wouldn't be especially useful in the future as we are working to move away > from the PackageCD concept and instead to the Installer. The Installer lists > the packages on the CD, making it easy for users to choose. > > I would say in the mean time, a link to the CONTENTS file (or a copy of it) > would be sufficient. After all, the list from the spec files is grossly > incomplete. If a user didn't know that evolution was a dependency of gnome, > they would never know that evolution is on the CD. How about a /proj/en/releng/packagecd/${ARCH}/content page somewhere? It's probably easily maintainable from release to release. That way all packages on the CD could be listed, including the metapackages and all dependencies. (So that the user knows evolution is installed with gnome, for example).
It would be not a problem for us to add "If you want to know what's available on the packagecd, please refer to <link to the CONTENT file>" sentence in the handbook in the GRP chapter. We could also provide users with such lists for all the universal/minimal cds - containing programs available on them - all based on specfiles and of course maintained by releng - cause you are those who know best what's on CDs. From my POV it looks like a simple thing... What do you think?
Is this bug still even valid? For x86 at least, obviously there is no more PackageCD. Users have a checklist in the GLI LiveCD with all the packages available.
Since x86 is the only arch that has the installer officially so far, I'd say that this bug is still very much valid. Also, that list in the installer is not everything available via GRP. It's just a list of recommended packages. The ones available via GRP as marked with "(GRP)" next to their name.
Andrew: can we have the installer, using grppkgs.txt, add more entries to the list? It would be nice if it could list them all. Otherwise, we could pull the information from the specs, if necessary.
Yes, but we wouldn't have "friendly" names and descriptions for them unless they're known about beforehand. We could also just add all the packages that we know are going in "GRP" to the list in the installer before the release. That would allow us to add the names/descriptions.
That would work for the normal release, but what about the LiveDVD which will also have enlightenment/fluxbox/xfce/kde-meta/k3b/koffice? I guess you could add them (with descriptions) anyway, and the Installer would just add a (GRP) after them if they're on the CD/DVD, correct?
Yep.
I spoke to agaffney on IRC, and he was kind enough to provide me a link to the list of packages available on the x86 Installer LiveCD (http://tinyurl.com/na9kt), just go up a couple of levels to get the list for the amd64 Installer liveCD. The big problem is that since this bug was opened, it is only valid for arches that provide a separate GRP CD. And, in my opinion, the existing directions for listing CD contents (see the networkless 2006.1 PPC handbook) are quite sufficient; I don't think a list is necessary when you can view it yourself. And obviously, it's even easier in the graphical liveCDs, since you get to choose from the packages listed on the screen, and they have short descriptions as well. IIRC PPC even now has a installer liveCD testing, and will be the default media for the next release, thus further reducing the number of architectures that supply GRP CDs. So, given all this, do we still really need a list of packages available, when it's as easy as a) reading them off the screen of the installer and b) a simple "ls" of the directory contents?
(In reply to comment #13) > IIRC PPC even now has a installer liveCD testing, and will be the default media > for the next release, thus further reducing the number of architectures that > supply GRP CDs. You might want to re-read what I said a bit closer :) I said that there likely wouldn't be a release-ready PPC LiveCD until 2007.1, which is *not* the next release :P
(In reply to comment #14) > You might want to re-read what I said a bit closer :) I said that there likely > wouldn't be a release-ready PPC LiveCD until 2007.1, which is *not* the next > release :P Er, yeah . . . close enough. :p
So what about 2007.0. Do you have the lists somewhere?
(In reply to comment #16) > So what about 2007.0. Do you have the lists somewhere? > Replace 2006.1 with 2007.0 in the above sources.g.o URL.
Is this still valid? It seems to me that the demand for those archs where it is still appropriate is very slim. If it is really wanted by the arch maintainers, don't hesitate to say so and we can include the sources.g.o link in the appropriate docs.
GRP? What GRP? Maybe in the future we'll have a GRP and we'll think it's worth mentioning. Closin'.
