Why is redhat-artwork multi-lib?

[Matthias Clasen]

seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:06 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:06 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 10:29 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I don't think it is particularly difficult, but there are a number of 
>>>> constraints (like
>>>> keeping all trademarked logos in a separate package). What we need 
>>>> before making
>>>> any decisions here is a summary of the current situation (what "artwork" 
>>>> packages
>>>> do we have, how do they interact, also wrt to derived distributions, 
>>>> etc) and a list
>>>> of goals for a reorganization. I'm sure interested community members can 
>>>> take a
>>>> whack at that.
>>>>         
>>>  were you planning in changes in this area vis anaconda? 
>>>       
>> One thing that was discussed a little at FUDCon was moving some of the
>> trademarked logo bits into a separate "branding" repository.
>>
>> That doesn't really have much to do with redhat-artwork, though.
>> Historically speaking, redhat-artwork was created to contain all
>> Bluecurve bits (and could as well have been called "bluecurve-artwork",
>> it was just named prior to the name Bluecurve and with the thought of
>> letting the theme change over time...)
>>     
>
> Matthias,
>  So it sounds like all that needs to happen is:
>
>  1. rename the pkg to system-artwork (add an obsoletes redhat-artwork)
>  2. get rid of the bluecurve libs into another pkg
>  3. profit!
>
> Does that sound right to you
>   

Moving the libs to another package lets redhat-artwork become noarch, 
sure. It doesn't address
most of the other issues with artwork being spread over several packages 
in a confusing way...