Moving ImageMagick to Extras?

Rahul Sundaram sundaram at fedoraproject.org
Mon Jun 26 11:17:13 UTC 2006


On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 10:55 +0200, Jos Vos wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 04:45:12PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 
> > I'm continually baffled by the resistance to move things into Extras.
> > As a user, why should it matter to you?  When you run pup or pirut, can
> > you really tell what comes from Extras and what comes from Core?  As a
> > developer, this would give you more access to help the development of
> > said component.  How can this be a bad thing?  Once we get to the point
> > where we spin ISO sets that are Core and Extras packages to complete a
> > theme or goal (Fedora Desktop, Fedora Web Server, Fedora Development,
> > etc..) then does it _really_ matter if its in Core or Extras?  This is
> > why I said "yet" as we need to get to where "shipped" isos have the
> > content necessary for that goal of theme.
> > 
> > Please, do let me know why there is resistance.
> 
> Two reasons:
> 
> -  What about QA?  I'm fearing that the QA for the Extras packages
>    is not the same as for Core.  Is that right, or...?  At least
>    I've already seen Extras packages (don't remember which ones)
>    that seem of pretty poor quality (packaging-wise).

QA (if you consider packaging quality) is better reviewed in Extras
packages currently.

> 
> -  The relation between FC and RHEL.  I think there is officially
>    no relation, but I can't suppress the thoughts that there is one.
>    I've already seen good-old "nmh" being removed from FC and RHEL.
> 
> In fact, my main reason is the quality issue.

There is a relationship between FC and RHEL, yes but RHEL does include
packages which are in Fedora Extras.

Rahul




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list