On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Ronald van Haren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 16:23 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote: >>>> Hi devs, >>>> >>>> In testing for both architectures. Please signoff. >>> >>> Why is this package still in core? Nothing in core depends on it and >>> it's not a critical base package. >> >> Is it in the [core] repository, but not in the base group? If so, I >> think it has reason to be there- it can easily be viewed as a core >> component of a system install. >> >> Pushing everything down to extra doesn't really solve any identified >> problem. Cleaning out the base group is reasonable. >> >> -Dan >> > > Yes it is in the core repository but not it the base group. > > As I see it the package makes sence in either the core or the extra > repo. Core because it is an underlying lib of quite a few things which > could possibly break those (although the packages that depend on fuse > are not really mission critical). Extra because of what Jan said. > > If more people think it should really go to extra I'm happy to move > it. Opinions?
Hmmm... personally, it seems more like it belongs in extra, conceptually, but it is a kernel module which also seems to point to core. I'm neutral on it, so I say we do a little informal vote on this. Should fuse stay in core? Y/N
