[WBEL-devel] frills for WBEL?

[Hedemark, Magnus]

Rick Moran [mailto:whitebox@spam.morangroup.org] writes:

> The default up2date or yum conf could contain commented or otherwise 
> disabled references to the "frills" archives.  This way WBEL 
> is, and remains,
> just WBEL.  It is up the the admin to enable any other archives.

Ideally, yes.  As the library folks own the WBEL project, it's largely up to
them whether they want to adopt that or not.  Otherwise it's a matter of
documenting it somewhere else for people to find.

> I like this, but I wonder about its long term increased fragmentation.
> If we keep WBEL as close as possible to RHEL, then why not join up
> so to speak with other parties creating third party type 
> "frills" packages.

Such as?

Fedora was the one big one I knew of, and they are now RHAT.

> They should install and run on both RHEL and WBEL....  Really 
> interested
> in feedback on this one....

I was thinking of the old Fedora project (before RHAT) and how they had
stable/unstable/testing (kinda like Debian) so you got to pick the strength
of your poison.  Fresh RPM's got dumped in "testing".  A few people would
try them out and sign off on them, at which point they would move into
"unstable".  After a broader audience adopted the packages and didn't
complain they'd get moved into "stable".  Security patches, of course, would
take a faster track.

> I certainly don't think that there is any reason for anyone to walk
> away from the project because of the existance of an available 
> "frills" archive.

And by keeping a sharp line between the distribution and the frills, I think
it is a perfect way to make all parties happy.