On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Fabian Arrotin <fabian.arrotin at 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