[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Making Fedora Core CD #1 Standalone -- Core should continue but let's define a subset



Chris Chabot wrote:  
> This actually opens a whole new can of worms for the fedora project..
> Most of these plans should really be split into 3 different
> repositories:
> - Supported Core
> - Support additional packages
> - Unsupported additional packages

Is that not Fedora "Core" "Extras" (and "Alternatives") and "3rd party"
now?  Why reproduce what _does_ work _now_?

I'm not questioning Red Hat's selection/repository as it is build atop
of Core.  And I'm not really even questioning Core itself.

I'm must saying that (as someone else pointed out), the "comps.xml"
could use some play.  That is where I have focused my efforts in the
past (from RHL 7 upward).

> That way the core is a solid base on which to base everything else.
> The supported packages would be bugzilla'ble and would either be
> maintained by Redhat or by a trusted maintainer (who has earned this
> title and trust over time in the unsupported playground) and the
> unsupported would be a great place for well working packages that are
> not maintained by a trusted maintainer or redhat.

But at some point Core is going to be overbloated (some said RHL 7 was
;-).  You get no argument from me behind the reasoning -- legacy/upward
compatibility.  But there should probably be an attempt to create a new,
"subset" that people can choose that just gives them a running system.

> This way anyone can try to contribute packages (as u said, for things
> like OpenGroupWare.org, etc) and the maintainer can prove and show he
> can maintain, fix and support this contribution over time before it
> gets moved to 'officialy included'. in essence this follows the debian
> structure, packages are only included if there is a valid and trusted
> maintainer for them.

No, I'm not saying that (did I even say that?).  I don't question the
Fedora steering committee on the selection for Core, Extras, etc...  I
trust their good judgement to continue Core, Extras, etc... on the path
it is going.  To do otherwise is only a distraction and a lot of useless
effort.  After all, Fedora is distributed now -- or someone gets Core
plus Extras on a single DVD because they have low bandwidth.

I'm just suggesting it might be time to define a "basic" subset for
Core.  With the distributed repositories and dependency checking, any
thing that needs to be install can be installed.

> Reasoning for this is that it would be a _lot_ worse if there was a
> serious data-destroying bug or security compromising bug in a package
> that no one would fix (in a timely and correct fashion) then it would
> be to not include a package.

I don't think I've ever suggested this.  I think you're making a
statement based on what you think I suggested, but did not.

Trying to replicate the package and support decisions of the RH/Fedora
team would be ludicrious.  And it's unnecessary with the distributed
repositories nowdays.

As someone else pointed out, all I'm saying is that it might be time
for  a "tighter" comps.xml as just an _option_ for a CD.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- b j smith ieee org




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]