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

Jean-Marc Liger jean-marc.liger at siris.sorbonne.fr
Thu Aug 12 07:03:05 EDT 2010


  Le 12/08/10 12:56, Dag Wieers a écrit :
> 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.

.rfp. rpmforge plus, as centosplus, seems better for me.

JML

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



More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list