On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:08 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Yeah, here's another example of the dichotomy: > > seth vidal wrote: > > Some complexity in enabling Alternatives: > > 1. we can't enable alternatives by default - the obsoletes it could > > allow would eat packages for people who really just want to use core. > > 2. create a sensible way of dealing with conflicts - something we don't > > really need to deal with right now. > > Inside of Fedora > > > 3. dealing with alternative tree creation and QA. What if a user > > creates a fedora 'distro' using an alternatives kernel? How does that > > impact testing? How do we cope with the near endless number of > > combination or configurations we might get? > > and creating full Fedora variants. > > What we really need to be focused on is a better comps system. > Something that doesn't just know about packages but also knows about > repos and replacing some packages with packages from other repositories. > Our current systems are built around "one Fedora to rule them all" and > that's just not going to work anymore. > Do we need to be focused on that? It seems like it's a pretty serious edge case but we need to make sure we have the core case working before trailing off after edge cases. -sv
