Warren Togami wrote:
I'll throw my hat into this debate behind Warren here. After reading this thread, it seems to me that the decision to make a package part of core or not, is more one of some alternate agenda, rather than one of need for a packages core functionality, as the name suggests. Extras is the home for any package which at least part of the community feels a need for, but for which the maintainer couldn't, or didn't care to maneuver into core. Amusignly enough, it seems to me that core is the project without clear definition. I for one see no problem with guting core down to the installer, kernel, base filesystem utils, yum/up2date/etc, and anything else that we can squeeze onto one or two cd's. Someone can then make a good cottage industry out of burning cd's for the extras channel for those without hefty internet access.David Nielsen wrote:
But is there actually any work going on in this area or is this one of those chicken and egg things, Extras task has not been clearly defined and we won't define it since there is no real Extras to relate to.
Either way we should start to seriously debate what tasks Core needs to do, and work to avoid duplication in task completion.
- David
"Extras not defined" is FUD spread by certain individuals who have refused to cooperate in a collaborative project. When Extras happens it will initially be a quick import of everything we have now. Lieutenants chosen among community members will act as a gatekeeper allowing stuff in. Updates to existing packages will be allowed in very quickly like current Extras policy, except directly through CVS. New package additions will however will go through a high level of scrutiny. Of course all of this depends entirely on how much we generally trust the contributor.
Warren
