On 06/17/2014 11:13 AM, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org > <mailto:mail-lists at 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140617/fbeb5014/attachment-0007.sig>