Hi all. >> 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? > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. optional in extras would also be fine imho. -- Greets Marcus