[suggest] Gnome 2.32 backported to RHEL6
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
>> a place in RPMForge instead of keeping them in my own repos.
> Hi Sergio,
> 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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the users