[CentOS-devel] Considering repo re-structuring

Ralph Angenendt ralph.angenendt at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 15:14:03 EST 2010


Am 26.11.10 19:32, schrieb Karanbir Singh:
> I am not sold on the idea of calling it 'optional' - as mentioned 
> before, we dont really have a supported and optional model in CentOS. 
> Does everyone really want to go with the 'optional' name ?

I'm (even with RHEL) wondering what makes them optional. Optional
compared to what? Sounds like some alternative in there, but then again
the question: An alternative to what?

I gather just having one repo with the "optional" packages in there
isn't that great, as people might want to stay close to the
"non-optional" RHEL when using CentOS.

I'd put those packages into Extras - even though we already had an extra
repository. But if those packages which RH deems to be optional - so are
ours.

What I don't want to have is base, updates, plus, extras and optional.
Either we drop base and put our packages into "optional" too, or we just
put "optional" into our extras.

We can clearly flag our packages via a repo tag, for example.

Ralph


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list