Re: FC2 test 1

From: Jef Spaleta (
Date: 02/12/04

  • Next message: Alexander Dalloz: "Re: network / PCMCIA"
    Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:22:41 -0500

    Bill Nottingham wrote:
    > There's two conflicting schools of thought here:
    > 1) get Extras going, move chunks of Core to Extras, and have
    > Core be 2-3 binary CDs
    > 2) get Extras going, but put even more stuff in Core, have Core
    > go to 5,6,7 CDs
    > Personally, I'd go for door #1

    If only there was a set of guidelines..a Fedora Core Code...
    outlining a set of technical/non-technical
    milestones/checklist/objectives/priorities that packages should try to
    meet as part of being nominated for inclusion in Core. And conversely
    the same guidelines would be useful to nominate packages to be removed
    from Core that are found to be...lacking. Guidelines/checklist would
    make it easier for 'rational' people in the community to nominate a
    specific piece of software out of a myriad of project options that sort
    of do the same thing. Having people try to do this based solely on
    personal opinion about what works best, package by a train

    And it's not just a matter of fighting over the package options among a
    set of alternatives that do similar things. The 2 or 3 binary CD limit
    also makes it hard to even have one good package included to do all
    possible things. A better description of the type of role(s) Fedora Core
    by itself is suppose to fill, would also make it easier to make
    'rational' package inclusion/exclusion nominations. Can you really fit
    a general purpose 'desktop' and general purpose 'server' distro into 2
    cds...without making significant compromises in one or the other moving
    forward? Or is Fedora the "jack of all trades, master of none"

    -jef"proud to be a jack"spaleta


    fedora-list mailing list
    To unsubscribe:

  • Next message: Alexander Dalloz: "Re: network / PCMCIA"