On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 11:49:20 -0400, Michael Tiemann <tiemann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Do you at least agree that my definition of Extras--the maximal set of > consistent packages, puts a bound on how out of hand components can > get? I.e., there's still a normalizing force to be "in", even if that > "in" is much larger a circle than core. Sure yes... Fedora Universe will be made up of exactly Core+Extras. No matter how fine grained you want to slice up Core and Extras in to componentized components. I'm not even sure we need 'components' at all, unless there is a distinct advantage in terms of development organization and work-flow to help package maintainers keep the Fedora Universe in shape. But I see no reason to advertise that component concept to the user. Who cares if 'gnome' and 'kde' and 'emacs' are seperate components. Its certaintly not clear to me that someone might want to build an installable alternative to Core that might contain a few gnome apps with a few kde apps. Building an installable collection aimed an audience or task should be built up as needed package by package from the universe, not component by component. My big issue is making sure we have a manageable set of collections as part of the Fedora project, so that they see appropriate testing for installability AND have distinct audiences and purposes if they are to live inside the Fedora umbrella. I'm not really keen on the idea of everyone downstream being able to build custom install mediasets and call those mediasets Fedora. Maybe based on Fedora or something like that, but I certaintly want there to be a distinct line between collections that are managed as part of Fedora and what is created downstream. I think there is room in Fedora for several distinct media sets that draw their updates from the Fedora Universe of packages. Though really, we have to wait and see how Extras looks and tastes before we can really think about the issue of alternative collections. -jef
