[CentOS-devel] [packagers] Re: wine 1.2 packages

Dag Wieers dag at wieers.com
Thu Aug 12 06:56:56 EDT 2010


On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 11:52 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
>> (flex and make come to mind, there were a few others)
>
> Yes!!!
>
> Latest autotools, flex / bison, static packages for unsatisfiable
> dependencies such as curl, qt etc. All of this has no place in the
> standard base repository.
>
>> It could be:
>>
>>
>> What do people think ?
>
> From the aestetical point of view what bothers be is that rf is just 2
> characters, while the rest is 3 characters long :-)

But on the upside, you shouldn't see those on "normal" systems :-)

Which reminds me that I also did the proposal of creating an "extras" 
repository, so:

   	.rf.	rpmforge stable		(additional packages)
   	.rfb.	rpmforge buildtools	(buildtools, not required)
  	.rft.	rpmforge testing	(test stuff, no guarantee)
 	.rfx.	rpmforge extras		(packages replacing base)

Not sure if rfx/extras is a good name for that repository.

If we decide to do this, I guess we should start identifying those 
packages that replace base, or require packages that replace base.

-- 
--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list