On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 13:41, Warren Togami wrote: > Havoc Pennington wrote: > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 04:25, Warren Togami wrote: > > > >>Know that there may also be benefits to moving KDE to Extras. > >>* Red Hat does not emphasize enigneering work on KDE. Most of the RH > >>desktop team works mainly on GNOME. > >>* As a result our KDE is always not as good as it could be. > >>* Community members care about KDE. > >>* Thus community members would do a better job of providing a more > >>polished KDE experience in Fedora. > > > > > > You are assuming here that the Core/Extras split is defined by "Red Hat > > maintains Core" and "community maintains Extras" - I don't know if > > that's a given. More people helping maintain the Core KDE packages > > wouldn't be a bad thing, though of course everyone has to have a similar > > vision for the packages, it wouldn't work too well if kdebase and > > kdelibs maintainers were having CVS commit wars. ;-) > > > > Personally I would not want to move KDE to Extras, at least with the > > current de facto definition of Core as "stuff relatively more people > > want to use" and Extras as "stuff relatively few people are clamoring > > for." Fedora isn't a commercially supported product and part of the > > reason for that is to let us include more stuff that people like. > > It's also targeted toward a techie audience and having choice of > > desktops is a pretty geek friendly thing. > > > > Havoc > > I was not advocating the moving of KDE to Extras, but I know that > certain higher-up-manager-types have proposed it. Well, that might be appropriate for RHEL, but as far as FC/FE is concerned I find this to be a strong indication about these persons to forget about one essential thing: "The audience these distributions are addressing" RHEL: Enterprizes FC/FE: TBD? Many users having migrated to FC/FE from RHL will expect FC+FE to be "focused on desktop applications", others will expect FC+FE to be a "universal"/"can contain everything" distribution, others will see it as a chance to get "the SW into a distribution they had ever wanted to be in, but has never made it". > Your last two posts > indicating that Core should not be equal to RHEL is a view that I > totally favor. ACK. Cf. above. If not, Core will be some sort of "RHEL-beta". This might be something RH's management has in mind, but I'd expect this to be little useful to the general public and therefore to be doomed to fail. > I would agree that we should instead try to get the KDE-RedHat and > external people more involved in improving the Core KDE packages. ACK. IMO, you have just tripped over what I think is the cause of most problems currently being discussed: Many RH's developers/packagers/maintainers and RH as a whole still seem stick to a "RH centric development model" and have not really opened up to a more "open development model". Ralf
