Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Wed Mar 16 21:02:25 UTC 2005

David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at infradead.org) said: 
> We need Exim in RHEL -- we can't be quite to haphazard about removing
> stuff from RHEL when other packages don't provide equivalent
> functionality. So we need to keep maintaining it in the internal CVS
> tree, and I will continue to do so.

Which has little relation to the availability of the package
in Extras.

> There has been some discussion of how we get the internally-maintained
> packages into Extras -- but as with the rest of the Extras process, it's
> all a little hazy at the moment and nothing's really taken shape in time
> for FC4.

There are defined procedures for adding packages to Extras; there
are *already* multiple packages maintained by Red Hat internal

> I'd already split the exim-doc package out, because it was 2/3 of the
> size of the total, is updated out of sync with the binary package and
> comes from entirely separate source tarballs. That's a candidate for
> being imported to Extras CVS, perhaps -- but consider Exim itself
> vetoed. I'm still hoping that the consensus on the fedora-maintainers
> list will be followed and all 1721KiB of exim will be put back into FC4;
> there's certainly enough room for it.

Wait. So, because you're waiting for it to be added back to core, you're
going to argue against adding it to Extras, so no one will have access
to it?

Damn, I should just sponsor my 4-year old daughter as a contributor
if we have to deal with this sort of logic all the time.


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list