wine 1.2 packages
 

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 11:52 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
>> (flex and make come to mind, there were a few others)
>
> Yes!!!
>
> Latest autotools, flex / bison, static packages for unsatisfiable
> dependencies such as curl, qt etc. All of this has no place in the
> standard base repository.
>
>> It could be:
>>
>>
>> What do people think ?
>
> From the aestetical point of view what bothers be is that rf is just 2
> characters, while the rest is 3 characters long :-)

But on the upside, you shouldn't see those on "normal" systems :-)

Which reminds me that I also did the proposal of creating an "extras"
repository, so:

.rf. rpmforge stable (additional packages)
.rfb. rpmforge buildtools (buildtools, not required)
.rft. rpmforge testing (test stuff, no guarantee)
.rfx. rpmforge extras (packages replacing base)

Not sure if rfx/extras is a good name for that repository.

If we decide to do this, I guess we should start identifying those
packages that replace base, or require packages that replace base.

--
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

wine 1.2 packages
 

On 08/12/2010 11:56 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> But on the upside, you shouldn't see those on "normal" systems :-)
>
> Which reminds me that I also did the proposal of creating an "extras"
> repository, so:

Please drop the CC to centos-devel, this conversation has no relevance
to CentOS development or CentOS Infra.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

wine 1.2 packages
 

Le 12/08/10 12:56, Dag Wieers a écrit :
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 11:52 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>
>>> (flex and make come to mind, there were a few others)
>> Yes!!!
>>
>> Latest autotools, flex / bison, static packages for unsatisfiable
>> dependencies such as curl, qt etc. All of this has no place in the
>> standard base repository.
>>
>>> It could be:
>>>
>>>
>>> What do people think ?
>> From the aestetical point of view what bothers be is that rf is just 2
>> characters, while the rest is 3 characters long :-)
> But on the upside, you shouldn't see those on "normal" systems :-)
>
> Which reminds me that I also did the proposal of creating an "extras"
> repository, so:
>
> .rf. rpmforge stable (additional packages)
> .rfb. rpmforge buildtools (buildtools, not required)
> .rft. rpmforge testing (test stuff, no guarantee)
> .rfx. rpmforge extras (packages replacing base)
>
> Not sure if rfx/extras is a good name for that repository.

.rfp. rpmforge plus, as centosplus, seems better for me.

JML

> If we decide to do this, I guess we should start identifying those
> packages that replace base, or require packages that replace base.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel