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

Re: PROPOSAL: Core size reduction "bug day"


Perhaps you could read the strawman document that I sent to this list
last week.   I proposed many answers to the questions you raised. 
Whether or not they are the right answers needs to be discussed, but
until we start criticizing a common framework, we'll all keep
reinventing the wheel.

Perhaps my email was lost because it was part of a larger thread, so I
will re-post under a new thread header.


On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 21:57, Toshio wrote:
> > I'm hereby proposing we hold a bug day on IRC, Saturday the 31th to
> > debate the possibility of such an action and which programs to move in
> > that is the case.
> I'm not in favour of discussing what packages to move out of Core at
> this time.  But "debating the possibility" *and the desirability* sounds
> good provided we derive something concrete from it rather than just
> another "good idea gets bandied about and found to have holes that no
> one ever bothers to address" session.  In particular: let's discuss what
> infrastructure and policy clarifications are prerequisites to changing
> how comprehensive core is.
> Reasoning: I think it might be possible to weed out a package here and a
> package there that can be removed or replaced in Core but I don't think
> we're currently ready to cut up the distro into CD sized pieces and let
> users download each one at will.  Many people have touched on the fact
> that this is an issue, but I haven't seen an attempt to spell out the
> length and breadth of the problem.
> Here's my attempt to add something valuable to the discussion:
> * Fedora Extras
>   - We need to have Extras officially "in place" (so we can see how it
> interacts with Core.)
>   - Define Red Hat's relationship:
>     + Oversight.  Red Hat pretty much controls Core.  What about Extras?
>     + Resources.  Red Hat is committing hardware to Core (and I believe
> Extras) but what about personnel?  Does movement of packages from Core
> to Extras mean the packaging burden shifts to community support or will
> RH pay employees to maintain packages in Extras?
> * Distribution of add-on releases
>   - Since using FC, I've realized the time-saving benefits of
> bittorrent.  If I have to download 500MB-1GB of packages to replace what
> was left out of Core, will I be able to get it as fast?
>   - How are we going to choose what should be on Extras CDs?  If we
> think it's hard choosing what should be in and what should be out of
> Core right now, how are we going to feel about choosing what should be
> in an Extra Server CD?  An Extra Desktop CD?  A KDE CD?  Can there be
> overlap? 
>   - What type of schedule are we going to propose for Extras CDs?
>   - Will Extras be rebuilt along with Core _before_ a FC release (so
> Extras software can be updated simultaneously.)
>   - When installing Core, will loading of Extras/3rd party CDs be
> supported?
>   - What technical hurdles can stop packages from being upgraded without
> help from anaconda (and therefore need to remain in Core)?
> * Packages already in Core and those in RHEL:
>   - How will we deal with dependencies that are unmet by a smaller Core?
>   - Red Hat "justifies" Core as a testing ground for RHEL.  How does
> this requirement affect what can be moved out of Core into Extras?
> * Direction of the Distro:
>   - Maybe it's just my impression.  Maybe it's Linus's statement that
> Linux needs more applications.  I get the feeling one goal of all
> distros is the concept of "more."  If we're going to consciously try to
> reduce the size of Core, are we going to still claim "more" by touting
> Extras?  Are we going to replace it with something better?  (I'm
> personally voting for "Delightful" :-)
> * Numerous other things I've missed -- I'm depending on Jef"my memory is
> like an elephant's and my insight is as keen as a taoist monk's"Spaleta
> to flesh things out.  (Isn't it nice to have a middle name that makes
> people think of you as an authority figure?)
> Personally, I'm a fan of increasing the distro size.  However, the idea
> that was passed around of having a microFedora with Core built
> _transparently_ on top and Extras releases _transparently_ on top of
> that strikes me as a goal that would bring the most change for the least
> dissatisfaction (assuming that dissatisfaction is a sliding scale from
> "I can live with it" to "I'm going to run that other OS from now on!"
> rather than a boolean value.)  If it's attainable (politically as well
> as technically) let's shoot for that.  I think answers to these
> questions are some of the necessary precursors to getting there.
> -Toshio

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