Package pruning for FC4 and beyond - question

Eric Warnke eric at
Sat Feb 26 20:40:30 UTC 2005

Is it that difficult for RH to maintain contol, but be copied to extras 
for building in Fedora Extras?  If this is not already a thread internal 
to RH it should be.  What is the real and expected deliniation between 
FC, FE, RHEL, and RH as a company and the maintainers and community at 
large?  I understand there are real business issues that forced the 
creation of FE, but now the continued push for more community involvment 
necessatated by package maintanince and thereby extending FE into FC's 
old territory... what's the deal?

I don't expect anyone can answer the question right now, but I think we 
at least deserve an answer at some point in the near future.


Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:52:45 -0500, Eric Warnke <eric at> wrote:
>>Since this is the second time this has come up...
>>Is being part of RHEL reason enough to keep things in core?  If that is
>>the case I will exclude from my list all packages that exist in RHEL.
>>Personally I don't think that should be the goal here.
> There is no clear answer to this yet. The issue is complicated however
> by the fact that Extras buildsystem is seperate from the Red Hat
> internal buildsystem Core and RHEL both currently use. I'm sure the
> buildsystem constraints factor into how Red Hat decides where to keep
> RHEL relevant components under their control.
> -jef


Eric Warnke                   Computer Programmer / Systems Analyst
eric at                                      518-727-1523
GPG Fingerprint: E7C5 615B 2115 C9D9 7E75  5088 930B 91E5 218B 6259

'There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong.' - H.L. Mencken

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list