hi,
So we now have RHEL media, RHEL optionals and RHEL Extras. Optionals and media seems to tie in as before, however Extras has its own policy + lifeterm etc.
Thoughts on what we might do with those rpms ? I'd have though that putting them in CentOS-Extras would line up nicely. Content that is available out of the blocks to anyone with a CentOS install, but not themselves included in the distro.
thoughts ?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
hi,
So we now have RHEL media, RHEL optionals and RHEL Extras. Optionals and media seems to tie in as before, however Extras has its own policy + lifeterm etc.
Thoughts on what we might do with those rpms ? I'd have though that putting them in CentOS-Extras would line up nicely. Content that is available out of the blocks to anyone with a CentOS install, but not themselves included in the distro.
thoughts ?
I like that approach. If these packages actually have different lifetime expectancies, may change versions, etc. I think putting them in Base could be problematic. CentOS-Extras seems like a good compromise. Is there any reason these might need to be separated from what was historically in CentOS-Extras?
-Jeff
Am 17.06.2014 18:13, schrieb Jeff Sheltren:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org mailto:mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
hi, So we now have RHEL media, RHEL optionals and RHEL Extras. Optionals and media seems to tie in as before, however Extras has its own policy + lifeterm etc. Thoughts on what we might do with those rpms ? I'd have though that putting them in CentOS-Extras would line up nicely. Content that is available out of the blocks to anyone with a CentOS install, but not themselves included in the distro. thoughts ?I like that approach. If these packages actually have different lifetime expectancies, may change versions, etc. I think putting them in Base could be problematic. CentOS-Extras seems like a good compromise. Is there any reason these might need to be separated from what was historically in CentOS-Extras?
-Jeff
+1
On 06/17/2014 11:13 AM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
hi,
So we now have RHEL media, RHEL optionals and RHEL Extras. Optionals and media seems to tie in as before, however Extras has its own policy + lifeterm etc.
Thoughts on what we might do with those rpms ? I'd have though that putting them in CentOS-Extras would line up nicely. Content that is available out of the blocks to anyone with a CentOS install, but not themselves included in the distro.
thoughts ?
I like that approach. If these packages actually have different lifetime expectancies, may change versions, etc. I think putting them in Base could be problematic. CentOS-Extras seems like a good compromise. Is there any reason these might need to be separated from what was historically in CentOS-Extras?
+1 to CentOS-Extras here as well.
On 06/17/2014 11:13 AM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org mailto:mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
hi, So we now have RHEL media, RHEL optionals and RHEL Extras. Optionals and media seems to tie in as before, however Extras has its own policy + lifeterm etc. Thoughts on what we might do with those rpms ? I'd have though that putting them in CentOS-Extras would line up nicely. Content that is available out of the blocks to anyone with a CentOS install, but not themselves included in the distro. thoughts ?I like that approach. If these packages actually have different lifetime expectancies, may change versions, etc. I think putting them in Base could be problematic. CentOS-Extras seems like a good compromise. Is there any reason these might need to be separated from what was historically in CentOS-Extras?
I do not see anything about the packages that make them incompatible with CentOS-Extras
+1 from me
On 06/17/2014 07:06 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi,
So we now have RHEL media, RHEL optionals and RHEL Extras. Optionals and media seems to tie in as before, however Extras has its own policy + lifeterm etc.
Thoughts on what we might do with those rpms ? I'd have though that putting them in CentOS-Extras would line up nicely. Content that is available out of the blocks to anyone with a CentOS install, but not themselves included in the distro.
thoughts ?
definite +1 from me. those package look like a perfect candidate for centos-extras and are definitely needed, we must ship them
On 17/06/14 18:06, Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi,
So we now have RHEL media, RHEL optionals and RHEL Extras. Optionals and media seems to tie in as before, however Extras has its own policy + lifeterm etc.
Thoughts on what we might do with those rpms ? I'd have though that putting them in CentOS-Extras would line up nicely. Content that is available out of the blocks to anyone with a CentOS install, but not themselves included in the distro.
thoughts ?
Well, my first reaction was "yeah, +1" like for other people who already answered. But I have to mitigate my anwer, as I see that "Extras (upstream one) has its own policy + lifeterm". Have we read that policy to be sure that packages that will appear in that repo will not overwrite base packages ? As, as I understand it, it's an additional repo/channel that people can decide to opt-in (not there by default) , which is not what we're doing, as our Extras repo comes with "enabled=1" .. or do we change it to "enabled=0" in our yum .repo file, so that people can easily opt-in if they want to ?
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.net wrote:
On 17/06/14 18:06, Karanbir Singh wrote:
hi,
So we now have RHEL media, RHEL optionals and RHEL Extras. Optionals and media seems to tie in as before, however Extras has its own policy + lifeterm etc.
Thoughts on what we might do with those rpms ? I'd have though that putting them in CentOS-Extras would line up nicely. Content that is available out of the blocks to anyone with a CentOS install, but not themselves included in the distro.
thoughts ?
Well, my first reaction was "yeah, +1" like for other people who already answered. But I have to mitigate my anwer, as I see that "Extras (upstream one) has its own policy + lifeterm". Have we read that policy to be sure that packages that will appear in that repo will not overwrite base packages ? As, as I understand it, it's an additional repo/channel that people can decide to opt-in (not there by default) , which is not what we're doing, as our Extras repo comes with "enabled=1" .. or do we change it to "enabled=0" in our yum .repo file, so that people can easily opt-in if they want to ?
In addition/relation to that, because of the naming, users might think 'centos-extras' is a rebuild of 'rhel-extras'.
Akemi
-
Akemi Yagi -
Christoph Galuschka -
Fabian Arrotin -
Jeff Sheltren -
Jim Perrin -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Manuel Wolfshant