Jeremy Katz wrote:
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?
It follows the same packaging standards, review process, etc...
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.
Not for you, for whoever is maintaining the Alternatives pkg.
-- Rex
