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

Re: rawhide report: 20050121 changes

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.


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.


> 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.


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