rawhide report: 20050121 changes
Josh Boyer
jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org
Sat Jan 22 17:24:20 UTC 2005
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 22:17 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:23:12 -0600, Josh Boyer
> > If the Core install CDs give you an option to install from the Extras
> > CDs at _install_ time, and you have the choice to not accept the
> > default, then I could be OK with that.
>
> I would very much want this to be supported in the installer. adding
> repositories and selecting packages from the extras and alternatives
> repo including the ability to install them from kickstart would
> satisfy everyone I believe.
Agreed.
Fedora Core and Fedora Extras (maybe even alternatives) could still be
packaged together in a DVD ISO for those that want "one ISO to rule them
all". So maybe given that, we could look at reorganizing the CD ISOs as
you suggested.
>
> >
> > However, my main concern with moving KDE to Extras is not ISO
> > organization. It's more of a maintainership issue.
>
> valid concern. I already answered this one too to a limited extend .
> here is a more detailed answer.
>
> You might be well aware that kde-redhat.sf.net project has existed for
> quite sometime and is maintained in a active manner. when fedora
> extras policy for including packages, redhat or the other members in
> the community can ask these people and other upstream KDE developers
> to engage themselves with Redhat. one of the previous concerns with
> them was that Redhat was making modifications to KDE that was
> crippling the user experience for KDE ( I am not making that
> accusation. it just already exists). By moving these into extras and
> actively inviting the community, it is likely that upstream KDE
> developers and others would see this as an oppurtunity to build
> packages and provide a better experience for KDE users on fedora.
Hm.. I seemed to have missed where you mentioned the kde-redhat.sf.net
project earlier. That does make me a bit less apprehensive.
I'd still be concerned if KDE was declared as an Extras package, but I
can see some reasoning behind it. Who knows, maybe KDE could be the
"ultimate test" of whether Extras will really work.
>
> one of the other benefits of having KDE and other such non default
> packages outside fedora core is that the amount of software a typical
> end users installs on his/her system is reduced. ideally someone would
> step up to make anaconda installer have a minimal setup too. in
> essence this improves security and increases maintainability.
Agreed.
>
> Fedora has a stated policy of staying close with upstream. so package
> updates dont just include security and bug fixes but also introduces
> new features. a typical fedora user usually gigabytes of updates
> because there is no easy way to stay conservative and ignore packages
> containing new features. I also suggest this capability be introduced
> in pup and its command line variants too in FC4.
I personally like the fact that Fedora stays close to upstream. It's
almost necessary given the release cycle that it has. But maybe a
community driven bug-fixes project could fill the gap. Or maybe that's
not realistic. Just theorizing here.
>
>
> > Could you kindly point me to where the "defined goal of including only
> > defaults" is stated? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
>
> To be honest I did look for this in the website too but couldnt find
> it. It seems to be more of a implicit policy from reading through the
> previous discussions in this list. feel free to correct me otherwise
No need to correct anyone. It's potentially a good goal. I just
couldn't find it stated anywhere. Apologies if it came off a bit harsh.
josh
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list