On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 20:18 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 15:35 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 16:25 -0600, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > Might I suggest, as an alternative to punching me in the head, actually > > > *commenting on the draft* as I have repeatedly requested? ;-) > > > > Well this sort of thing slipped my mind. But I would prefer if we had > > some basic level of packages we considered essential to having something > > called 'Fedora'. > > This is a good point. I can imagine a number of practices that we would > not want to put under the Fedora name, such as turning off all security > or maybe using a different package manager than yum. I don't really see how either matters, really. If they turn off all security and make 'honey pot linux - based on fedora' as a livecd for catching would-be crackers, I have no problem with that. It would be a good thing to have fedora's name on, I think. If they put apt in place (and modify massive amounts of anaconda, etc, to make it all work) then why not? How does it hurt us? -sv _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
