[CentOS-devel] Considering repo re-structuring

[Fabian Arrotin]

Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> 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?

on a support point of view ( from a RHEL perspective) : most (if not 
all) of the packages in the optional repo for rhel6-server are in fact 
packages supported in the Workstation/Client subscription. So they are 
made available through an 'optional' channel for people with a Server 
subscription, but those customer won't get any support for such packages 
coming from Optional

> 
> 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.

As said above, because there is no support in CentOS and that such 
packages are in the Workstation/Client channels (that CentOS doesn't 
have), it's just one big repo for CentOS in the end

> 
> 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.

My vision of the Extras repository was a repository of packages non 
provided by Upstream, which is specifically the case for the optional ones

> 

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel


-- 
--
Fabian Arrotin