[CentOS-devel] Considering repo re-structuring
fabian.arrotin at arrfab.net
Fri Nov 26 15:28:52 EST 2010
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
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.
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
More information about the CentOS-devel