On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Dag Wieers <d...@wieers.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote: > > I've backported Gnome 2.32 packages to RHEL6 and I wonder if they could >> have >> a place in RPMForge instead of keeping them in my own repos. >> > > Hi Sergio, > Hey Dag, > > The rules for RPMforge Extras are not really defined, but in the past we > always refrained from adding non-leaf packages into RPMforge. The reasoning > mainly is that if you replace too much from RHEL6, you no longer are running > RHEL6. > Makes perfect sense. I thought about this before backporting, and I came to the conclusion that while Fedora is the 'de facto' Red Hat Desktop distribution, some of us feel comfortable using what we use daily in our datacenters. So I explored the idea of backporting and I found that non of the 'core' components need to be replaced. Most of the stuff is related to Gnome and its dependencies: http://mirror.frameos.org/frameos/6/experimental/x86_64/Packages/ > > So anything build against RHEL6's gnome 2.32 may fail with a Gnome 2.32 > backport and our aim is to break the least. But while I am personally not in > favor of adding this to RPMforge I would like to have such a discussion > because I think its merit is defining the rules or finding alternatives. > Absolutely. I don't think merging G2.32 packages with existing RPMForge is a good idea either. But what about having RPMForge-Gnome and RPMForge-KDE (or RPMForge-Desktop) with non server-centric desktop packages? RPMForge packages would be isolated from the noise and we could build desktop packages on top of RPMForge/CentOS ones. Regards. -- Sergio Rubio FrameOS Linux http://www.frameos.org twitter: @rubiojr blog: http://blog.frameos.org
_______________________________________________ suggest mailing list suggest@lists.rpmforge.net http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/suggest
