[CentOS-devel] [packagers] Re: wine 1.2 packages
Dag Wieers
dag at wieers.com
Thu Aug 12 10:56:56 UTC 2010
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 11:52 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
>> (flex and make come to mind, there were a few others)
>
> Yes!!!
>
> Latest autotools, flex / bison, static packages for unsatisfiable
> dependencies such as curl, qt etc. All of this has no place in the
> standard base repository.
>
>> It could be:
>>
>>
>> What do people think ?
>
> From the aestetical point of view what bothers be is that rf is just 2
> characters, while the rest is 3 characters long :-)
But on the upside, you shouldn't see those on "normal" systems :-)
Which reminds me that I also did the proposal of creating an "extras"
repository, so:
.rf. rpmforge stable (additional packages)
.rfb. rpmforge buildtools (buildtools, not required)
.rft. rpmforge testing (test stuff, no guarantee)
.rfx. rpmforge extras (packages replacing base)
Not sure if rfx/extras is a good name for that repository.
If we decide to do this, I guess we should start identifying those
packages that replace base, or require packages that replace base.
--
-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
More information about the CentOS-devel
mailing list