On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 10:55 +0200, Jos Vos wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 04:45:12PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > I'm continually baffled by the resistance to move things into Extras. > > As a user, why should it matter to you? When you run pup or pirut, can > > you really tell what comes from Extras and what comes from Core? As a > > developer, this would give you more access to help the development of > > said component. How can this be a bad thing? Once we get to the point > > where we spin ISO sets that are Core and Extras packages to complete a > > theme or goal (Fedora Desktop, Fedora Web Server, Fedora Development, > > etc..) then does it _really_ matter if its in Core or Extras? This is > > why I said "yet" as we need to get to where "shipped" isos have the > > content necessary for that goal of theme. > > > > Please, do let me know why there is resistance. > > Two reasons: > > - What about QA? I'm fearing that the QA for the Extras packages > is not the same as for Core. Is that right, or...? At least > I've already seen Extras packages (don't remember which ones) > that seem of pretty poor quality (packaging-wise). QA (if you consider packaging quality) is better reviewed in Extras packages currently. > > - The relation between FC and RHEL. I think there is officially > no relation, but I can't suppress the thoughts that there is one. > I've already seen good-old "nmh" being removed from FC and RHEL. > > In fact, my main reason is the quality issue. There is a relationship between FC and RHEL, yes but RHEL does include packages which are in Fedora Extras. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
