On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:11 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:01 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Here's the fallback position: Fernando continues to maintain the CCRMA > > kernel in his own yum repo, and *everything else* gets pulled into > > Extras > > over time. (To the best of my knowledge, none of the CCRMA apps > > *require* > > the CCRMA kernel -- it's just a huge help for getting any actual work > > done.) That way, at least Fernando has a mechanism to spread the > > workload > > for maintaining CCRMA among several assistants, and can spend most of > > his > > time maintaining his own kernel as he sees fit. > > > Or do we fire up thoughts on Alternatives again? Somewhere that we can > host replacement packages that folks can use to assemble 'Fedora' > variants but not be tied to the kernel or whatever. If we use the same > rules, or come up with a good rule set for Alternatives, same package > quality, same build systems, etc... we should be able to call it Fedora. How do you define "same package quality" if it's an alternate implementation? And starting to get bug reports from J. Foo's Fedora that has a drastically different kernel or glibc or ... is going to make things very very difficult for developers. Jeremy
