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