[arch-dev-public] Where [erxtra] ends and [community] begins

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Sun Oct 14 21:17:44 EDT 2007

On 10/14/07, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> after the creation of the [core] repository and the cleanup of old [current]
> it should be clear which packages should be in [core] and which don't.
> But the border between [extra] and [community] does not seem to be that sharp.
> Does [extra] only include the most important and essential packages? Is
> [community] only a playground and a repo full of alpha releases?
> Defining [extra] in a clear way should make it easier to cleanup this repo,
> too. We still have a lot of unmaintained or outdated packages.

I see a lot of people defining the difference here as "official" and
"unofficial" packages.

Personally, I think that is slightly rude to the TUs. It's like saying
"you guys aren't as good as us" or "our packages are better". This
just isn't the case.

While I don't like this distinction, it's pretty much the only one we have.
The way I look at it, is simple popularity. A package goes from
unsupported to community, then community to extra. This is the way
we've done a few things.

What I don't like, however, is stuff floating in extra that only 3 or
4 people use. That's a little silly.

If you were to ask me, I would define extra as "a set of packages that
are either necessary to any modern linux distro (apache, X11, etc etc)
OR are popular enough to warrant official developer oversight".

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list