On 15/03/17 16:58, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 15/03/17 09:28, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > >> So my understanding is that the problem relies on the fact that there >> isn't even a policy around Extras repository now. So it's up to the >> people allowed to build/sign/push to know what they'll add in Extras, >> and only in the arches they care about. > > https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories has a > definition for the Extras repos. on C7 it should include what is > upstream in the Extras/ repos ( provided we are able to build it ), and > other things that are needed sometimes to build content in base / updates. > > In addition to this, Extras should contain all centos-release-* files > from the SIG's. > > The only other content that should make it into Extras should be content > vetted by the core sig, considered fundamental to user experience or > tooling for user experience. ie. a fairly high barrier to entry. > > Does that give us enough policy wording for Extras ? Do we have > exceptions we need to work through ? > Sounds good. So with that definition in mind, how can we be sure that Extras is then built/distributed in parallel for all arches, so that then it can be safely enabled within CBS ? -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab -------------- 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/20170316/8028fa44/attachment-0008.sig>