On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:58:20 -0500, Doug Stewart wrote: > | Extras should at most depend on Core, but not on Alternatives. > > Okay, then, we need new nomenclature. Say I want the newest Galeon, > which (hypothetically) doesn't support the FC-shipped Mozilla but needs > FC-moz++ (as was the case for RedHat 9). On my RH9 boxes, I used Dag's > galeon+mozilla packages. > > Now, how would you suggest handling that situation? What names would > apply to the repositories where said packages reside? When you need an updated core component (Mozilla) and an updated add-on (Galeon -> Extras), I would expect such packages to be made available in the development streams of Fedora Core and Fedora Extras. > | As soon as you update software which is in Core or Extras, you don't play > | well with the current scheme, and all your software would be "Testing > | Alternatives". > | > > Hmmm. Not quite right, IMHO. Maybe "Unsupported" or something like > that? With the quote cut like that, it might look confusing. However, Axel referred to _upgrades_ and _rebuilds_ (probably with changed feature set) of software in order to make new and upgraded add-ons possible. That would at most fit into the development streams of Core/Extras/Alternatives. It all boils down to what official updates to Core/Extras/Alt are released. If the packages in current Fedora Core/Extras/Alt release are not up-to-date enough, dependent new stuff can only go into development streams or 3rd party repositories. > Again, taking the Dag moz+gal situation, I wouldn't label them as > "testing". If Galeon fits in to the "extras" category, but I wanted the > updated build and needed to upgrade Mozilla (a Core package), how would > you propose working out such a situation? Or are any users of such > packages strictly off the RedHat Ranch? Depends on whether you expect the community behind Fedora Extras and Fedora Core Development to be much slower than a 3rd party repository. --
Attachment:
pgp0GCkZLYGrc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
