seth vidal wrote:
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.
The cases that I see that it enables are:
One Laptop per Child
LiveCD
this music thing
Good number of reasonable cases there, at least from where I sit.
--Chris
