further package removals/potential package removals

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:19:26 +0100, Féliciano Matias wrote:

> Le lundi 24 janvier 2005 à 18:45 +0100, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> > (...)
> > Sorry that you disagree, but as someone who has reviewed and approved
> > several hundreds of packages at fedora.us, it is my opinion that the
> > classification (at least the split into stable+testing) has been
> > beneficial.
> 
> I am agree with stable+testing (or stable+rawhide).
> But testing for testing propose _only_.
> 
> Mplayer is in "unstable" since many months in livna. Doesn't seems it's
> for testing only.

Actually, the scheme at rpm.livna.org is a revised one.

Do you have any comments on the known issues why the packages stay in
"testing"?

There are a couple of packages which cannot be moved because they
cause regression and/or break other packages in "stable".

> Since many people use mplayer, many people have "unstable" in their
> yum.conf.

The key point is they are free to enable these optional upgrades which
may not be as trouble-free as stuff in "stable". Those who are happy
with the last "stable" release would not like if they were forced to
install less stable releases or no mplayer at all.
 
> The situation is not the same with FC/Rawhide and update/update_testing.
> A very few people use Rawhide or update_testing.

The developers do. And Rawhide is developed long enough to stabilize
for a first test release.