Am Samstag, den 10.12.2005, 11:43 -0500 schrieb Greg DeKoenigsberg: > Wow. Thoughtful note, Bill. Yeah, thanks Bill. > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > [...] > > > - brand the universe of Core + Extras as Fedora, and generally refer > > to that, as opposed to Fedora Core and Fedora Extras >[...] > I think we'll need to figure out how to brand (Core+Extras) and build > brand usage policies around that entity. Jesse Keating and I talked > this week about precisely that. But I don't think that just calling it > "Fedora" will work, for precisely the reason you point out. Quoting out of order here: >>...while reexaming the entirety of Core based on these criteria could > > remove various larger things. Examples of the former could include > > things like privoxy or dtach; examples of the latter could include > > larger things ranging from Jonas to KDE to Ruby. > > Obviously, the "favorite collections" idea must be rock-solid before we > can even consider the notion of "Kedora". Why not just Fedora Gnome and Fedora KDE? We avoid both the "KDE is a second class desktop for Fedora" problem and the name "Kedora" this way. And maybe Fedora Server for a version without GUI. Just "Fedora Linux" could also work, but I don't like that idea very much. > > - Support for languages not deemed as being fully supported (whether > > by average translation percentage, or some other metric) would > > exist solely in Extras. > > > > Frankly, I think this is a bad idea, but I know that others > > disagree with me. > > Why do you think it's a bad idea? I'm one of those who think moving some (most?) languages packages to extras is a good idea. But... > > However, it's my opinion that a lot of implementation of the latter > > category should wait until we have install-time support for multiple > > repostiories, and potentially support for CD grouping of the same. ...this must be done first. Just my 2 cent. CU thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
