reducing distribution CD count

[Havoc Pennington]

On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 19:16 -0600, Michael Favia wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
> 
> >Is there any reason either one couldn't be true?  That is, some packages
> >which RH isn't interested in maintaining, but also some that we
> >recognize are worth effort but shouldn't be part of Core?
> >  
> >
> I agree completely but i have formed the impression [perhaps mistakenly] 
> that packages moved to extras are "orphaned" packages as far as RH is 
> concerned. Or is that just the norm and not the "law"? I think you will 
> allay a great many fears and improve the perception of extras if this is 
> the case and it is communicated to the user/dev base a little better. In 
> case i am completely mistaken is there a reference document that spells 
> out the distinctions and flow of this type of information? I would much 
> rather read up on it than learn bit by bit pestering people over mailing 
> lists.

I think it's accurate that Red Hat would like to be maintaining fewer
packages and focusing more on the basics, but at the same time I don't
know why people are so terrified of that. It will probably make both the
basics and the non-basics higher quality to do this since there's more
focus on each one.

At the same time I doubt the core/extras line will end up being Red Hat
maintenance vs. external maintenance. I think we're heading toward some
other definition of core vs. extras. My personal preference leans toward
saying core is roughly the union of default install classes, but I'm
sure others have thought about it more.

Havoc