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

Re: suggestion: move all java packages to extras

> nality people expect from a consumer oriented
> > linux distro
> This is what needs to be defined "what people expect" I'm sure you have
> an idea of what you think should be in there but it's not.

it's also dynamic over time.

LAMP is probably undisputed
a "complete" graphical desktop is more fuzzy (after all, what is
"complete".. and which one)

Note that I very much am talking about functionalities (although LAMP
suggests implementation); the actual packages chosen can vary over time,
and for the most part I think providing 1 is enough. (there are
exceptions, eg gnome/kde politics or cases where the packages are very
different, like vi versus gnome-edit)

> > layer 2 of the union
> > "extras" - more "obscure" functionality for example because it's a
> > relatively small userbase but also because it can be new and emerging
> > things. In addition this can be alternative implementations to core
> > functionality. An example of this could be wu-ftpd or xfce or ..

fwiw I'm not arguing the current split is the right one. It's full of
legacy choices for example. Ideally there'll be a discussion at some
point about which functionalities could/should be in the "core" union
layer. And which are more suitable for higher layers.

> So far in extras we have examples of packages with "small" userbases as:
> xmms
well arguable the gnome desktop has a media player already. In that
sense "xmms" is a "alternative implementation" of "media player". 
> abiword
again, alternative implementation of "office suite"

> bittorrent

given that BT is the main distribution mechanism I think this one
could/should be in core.

> cyrus-imapd
alternative implementation of dovecot


> Now you tell me does that list make sense to you? It doesn't to me.
> I figure that people making a beowulf cluster can learn how to yum
> install ccs lam magma and friends on their own drawing from extras
> instead of having to have them in core.

I'd go further and say that "beowulf" should be a repo on top of extras
given how specialized it is.

> but most of the beowulf tools are already IN core.

and I'm arguing that might be wrong ;)

> This is what I'm talking about - right now the distinction b/t what gets
> into core and what goes into extras is more or less 'where does the
> packager work'

then I don't agree with how that works and would favor and advocate a
more "functionality" way of looking at it.

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