[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

What makes a package nominated for Core? (was: nominate for removal: ethereal)

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:37:34AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > It seems like an excellent place to start thinking of packages that
> > > should be maintained, in fedora extras, by the people interested in
> > > using them, not by the central developers at red hat. 
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Extremely useful tool that is useful for debugging an innumerable amount
> > of problems. It has saved literally hundreds of hours for me personally.
> > Making it less accessible (the network may be down when you need it
> > after all) would be a travesty.
> At no time did I suggest that ethereal was not useful. But there are
> LOTS of useful tools in fedora.us/fedora extras. Why can't ethereal just
> become one of them? :)

If there are comparable tools in fedora.us (or any other repo for that
matter), they should become Core, not vice-versa ;)

This brings up a good question, that has been floating around since
last year. What defines whether a package gets into Core? Yes, we all
know the blueprint definitions at fedora.redhat.com, but obviously
reality has diverged. And the only thing that is really being said, is
that they should augment FC but not replace any packages.

What is really the criterion/policy for deciding to add to Core (and
thus the CD/DVD distribution) or not?
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgp00051.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]