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