On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 23:34 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > Not necessarily antithetical. After all, anyone who uses the thing as > a base for their distro is going to want the base to be solid and > well-integrated. Taking that route probably would mean that desktop > polish is a lower priority than polishing the tools for making > derivatives, though. yes. the big-meeting-of-people-related-to-repositories+distro-making that we had last week was more or less about this subject. we have some great tools, now we need to tie them together. Here's the gist of what we came up with EVERY TOOL WE MAKE MUST TAKE AS INPUT: kickstart.cfg yum repos EVERY TOOL WE MAKE MUST EVENTUALLY OUTPUT: - distro + cds - livecd - xen/kvm images so we go up from there: web interface -> database database holds links to yum repos and the information to produce something like a kickstart.cfg database -> distro-spin service which produces whatever the user asked for ditto with the gui interface. This is what revisor does right now - ultimately all locally. > Also, polishing the user experience is generally not in conflict with > doing other things, whereas stripping the core down to something that > would fit on a mobile device would likely conflict with being a good > server :) right - the integration of the package sets are a whole other issue. > (Of course, another option is that my desire for a polished desktop > experience may be best met by someone doing a polished desktop spin of > Fedora rather than by having Fedora work on desktop polish at all, and > that Fedora should merely enable that and work to get fixes/polish > upstream where possible.) I don't know where that group sits, actually. -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
