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@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel