further package removals/potential package removals

[Stuart Children]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Only if the installer actually supports installing from extras as
> well, otherwise an upgrade may be impossible, or leave the system in a
> broken state.

This is one of my biggest concern with Extras.

I have no problem with many of the packages I regularly use being moved 
to Extras, so long as I can use tools given to me to continue managing a 
mix of packages from both Core and Extras - and that includes upgrades. 
I seriously do not consider reinstalling (then adding my Extras 
packages) a viable option every 6-8 months (Fedora's release cycle).

I do not have a problem with an upgrade saying: "You have non-Core 
packages installed. Please specify repository locations [1] or continue 
at risk of broken packages."

[1] Either "add" a CD ala debian, or point at a local directory, smb or 
nfs mount point, ftp server, etc of an Extras repository for the version 
of Fedora you are upgrading to (and any other repositories come to that).

> At which point I really fail to see the point of extras: either it's
> part of the distro, or it isn't.  Labeling it as extras just because
> it's in a separate CD is useful, because then people can choose which
> CDs to download and burn upfront, but it serves no other purpose.

I see Core as "packages managed mainly by RedHat employees and essential 
to a base [desktop|server] system" (latter is horribly subjective I 
know), and Extras as "packages mainly packaged by non-RedHat employees", 
with the extra requirement that no package in Core should depend on a 
package in Extras. Both are parts of the overall distribution, but Core 
simply has stricter QC and inclusion requirements.

HTH

-- 
Stuart Children