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

Re: reducing distribution CD count

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:07:33 +0000, Paul Nasrat <pnasrat redhat com> wrote:
> So we'd be shipping unmodified Fedora Core, Updates and Extras as a
> work. Which is still identifiable as Fedora.  So I don't think we fall
> into the "seperate patches" category.

unless of course you are talking about making changes to the installer
image to make the installer process aware of an expanded package set.
And there is the question of whether or not any installable mediaset
can be considered 'unmodified' in the sense that the md5sums that make
media-check work would change.  Is it just the packages.. or is the
installer image itself covered by the 'unmodified' language.  Its far
different to shove this all into a replacement installable image cd...
than to gather packages to gether on a seperate cd.
Even then on a seperate cd... are you allowed to generate repo
metadata that differs from the original network repository? If you
have a subset of packages the metadata will need to be regenerated.

In either case whether its allowed or not, I don't see it as clearly
delineated enough in the guidelines.  I would much rather see the
trademark guidelines rewritten to give some very specific guidance for
the most commonly expected usage case.... instead of being written for
lawyers to read.

Exactly in what ways is a replacement set of installable media allowed
to deviate from the original set? Can I include an Extras directory
tree? Can I generate repo metadata for the Extras tree? Can I re-work
the comps file to include more packages and groups? None of these
questions are actually spelled out and they need to be.


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