[suggest] Gnome 2.32 backported to RHEL6

Sergio Rubio rubiojr at frameos.org
Fri Nov 26 14:11:07 CET 2010

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Sergio Rubio wrote:
>  I've backported Gnome 2.32 packages to RHEL6 and I wonder if they could
>> have
>> a place in RPMForge instead of keeping them in my own repos.
> Hi Sergio,

Hey Dag,

> The rules for RPMforge Extras are not really defined, but in the past we
> always refrained from adding non-leaf packages into RPMforge. The reasoning
> mainly is that if you replace too much from RHEL6, you no longer are running
> RHEL6.

Makes perfect sense.

I thought about this before backporting, and I came to the conclusion that
while Fedora is the 'de facto' Red Hat Desktop distribution, some of us feel
comfortable using what we use daily in our datacenters. So I explored the
idea of backporting and I found that non of the 'core' components need to be
replaced. Most of the stuff is related to Gnome and its dependencies:


> So anything build against RHEL6's gnome 2.32 may fail with a Gnome 2.32
> backport and our aim is to break the least. But while I am personally not in
> favor of adding this to RPMforge I would like to have such a discussion
> because I think its merit is defining the rules or finding alternatives.


I don't think merging G2.32 packages with existing RPMForge is a good idea
either. But what about having RPMForge-Gnome and RPMForge-KDE (or
RPMForge-Desktop) with non server-centric desktop packages? RPMForge
packages would be isolated from the noise and we could build desktop
packages on top of RPMForge/CentOS ones.


Sergio Rubio

FrameOS Linux
twitter:   @rubiojr
blog:      http://blog.frameos.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101126/7caaa294/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the users mailing list