On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:09:42 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/12/2012 09:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > >> >Last time I checked the SIG's surrounding each of those spins they > >> >themselves where responsible for their own spins sizes so if they > >> >pass that they might just as well be doing so deliberately to > >> >deliver better out of the box experience for their target user > >> >base... > > I'm in the KDE SIG. We were basically forced to give up CD size > > because "Mini"DebugInfo was approved by FESCo over our objection. > > (We objected because of this very size issue.) FESCo explicitly > > told us "Make your image larger then, we don't care". SIGs setting > > their own size targets only works if the size targets are actually > > enforced against the "features" which break them! > > Fesco needs to provide the reasoning behind that decision to me it > makes no sense since the community surrounding their spins are the > once that actually decide what goes on them since they are the once > doing their own leg work... Please read all the logs from the fesco meetings where this feature was approved. FESCo decided the benefit to always having mini-debuginfo available outweighed the downside of increased space. I don't recall anyone saying "Make your image larger then, we don't care". Your possible options are: a) target a larger size (which is what you have done?) b) ask FESCo to reconsider, but you probibly want some kind of NEW data for that, because without that it's just likely to end the same way. c) Drop some more stuff from the live to get it back under 700mb. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
