Considering repo re-structuring
>> I am not sold on the idea of calling it 'optional' - as mentioned
>> before, we dont really have a supported and optional model in CentOS.
>> Does everyone really want to go with the 'optional' name ?
> I'm (even with RHEL) wondering what makes them optional. Optional
> compared to what? Sounds like some alternative in there, but then again
> the question: An alternative to what?
> I gather just having one repo with the "optional" packages in there
> isn't that great, as people might want to stay close to the
> "non-optional" RHEL when using CentOS.
> I'd put those packages into Extras - even though we already had an extra
> repository. But if those packages which RH deems to be optional - so are
> What I don't want to have is base, updates, plus, extras and optional.
> Either we drop base and put our packages into "optional" too, or we just
> put "optional" into our extras.
optional in extras would also be fine imho.
CentOS-devel mailing list