On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:21:04 -0400, Toshio wrote: > > I would say the goal here should be to make Extras as close to Core as > > possible in the user-visible ways. The Core/Extras split has more to do > > with who is doing the organization. The Fedora Project core team > > (whatever that is - steering committee or whatever) manages the Core > > release, tracks showstoppers, sets schedules, etc. etc. > > > > The Extras releases on the other hand are done by other teams, the > > example on http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/terminology.html > > is a "Fedora Extras HPC" release, presumably there's a group of people > > into HPC providing that. > > Makes sense but seems to contradict what Warren has been saying is the > eventual "status" of Extras. What I get from reading Warren's postings > is that fedora.us _is_ Extras but not officially. This means one > project which hosts a saner, more organized, higher quality > contrib.redhat.com.... The idea I see expressed in terminology.html > (and Michael Tiemann's post) is that Extras is a meta-project which > encompasses numerous other (possibly overlapping) sub-projects to add > (and subtract) from Fedora to make it more suitable for niche > applications. This is what I thought as well when reading his attachment, and the thought of a reincarnation of Red Hat Contrib sent shivers down my spine. But: "Not conflicting with each other" and "100% consistent with Fedora Core" does not allow any "overlapping". For reference, let me quote from Mr. Tiemann's attachment: Fedora Extras: the maximal universe of packages that * include all Fedora Core packages * meet open source and legal requirements * are 100% consistent with Fedora Core * are 100% consistent (not conflicting) with each other * preference for packages that are state-of-the-art * preference for packages that have strong community support --
