On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 12:23:09AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > - brand the universe of Core + Extras as Fedora, and generally refer > to that, as opposed to Fedora Core and Fedora Extras > - seamlessly allow Extras to be everywhere that Core is from an > installation path - anaconda, yum, pup, system-config-packages, etc. > - allow functionality grouping of packages for download and ISO > creation, and potentially do this for Extras I think it shoud be a goal to bring the Core and Extras processes and infrastructure closer and closer to each other until they can be absorbed into one entity. I like the name "Fedora Commons" that was mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and it has the advantage of using the same acronym, FC. > However, this does bring up issues: > - Extras and Core have differing release models, generally. Core > has a Release, plus Updates. Extras has a more rolling release > model. > - With the more rolling release model of Extras, how does that fit > in with building CD images, or grouping of packages? Do we A merged FC + FE could have timed Releases with CD images, followed by Updates until the next Release. > I suspect we could come up with some significant reducutions in > Core if we tried hard. Looking over a report of all the leaf nodes > in the distribution would produce lists of smaller packages that > could be removed, 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. In a merged FC + FE world, the "Reductions in Core" issue would be generalized to creating functional package groups. Each group or perhaps sets of groups would be put onto CDs/DVDs, for as many CDs/DVDs as needed to hold the entire universe of packages. The base CD would be required to install the system, but the others could be chosen at will. For network installs, these distinctions are even less important.
