On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 05:09:54PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 25 July 2013 16:59, Billy Crook <billycrook@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Given the amount of time that he spent on the mailing-list fighting for those features, then it looks like a waste of time, that work has been done. >> > >> > Unfeatures technically. He wanted to remove features from the Default >> > spin. Subtracting functionality is not a feature. He wanted an >> > unfeature. >> > >> >> No he wanted out of the default install. We have a badly defined >> naming scheme which is causing confusion: >> >> default install -> what you get when you put the DVD in and do a click >> through install. >> default spin -> The GNOME desktop livecd. >> >> Spins are managed by their respective "teams": >> default has been GNOME and managed by GNOME sig >> kde is managed by KDE sig >> xfce is managed by XFCE sig >> etc etc >> >> So I would say that the GNOME team is within its rights in managing >> its spin. Whether it is named default etc is someone else's problem. >> > This has come up before and I think it's just plain unclear :-( > > The problem is that the desktop spin and the default spin are kinda two > different roles but they are occupied by the same Product. In browsing old > tickets, I see some times when fesco has decided the default spin didn't > have to do what other other things did and sometimes when fesco said they > did. AFAICS, there's been no generalized policy put into place in regards > to this. So it's something that is decided on in every case where it comes > up. > > I don't think anyone thought they were doing anything wrong by making the > change in the desktop spin but because the desktop spin has more than one > owner, I've sent it back to FESCo to vote on whether allowing this change > there is something we intended or not. Well it is a desktop spin after all. Most of the "keep sendmail and syslog" arguments where more server related things. And the "but what if I install app foo that requires syslog" .. well the app has to put in rpm requires. Like for pretty much everything else. > (/me notes that if mattdm's Ring 1 was defined, this might be somewhat > easier to decide upon. If sendmail was in Ring 1 it would be an expected > part of the Fedora Platform. Anything general purpose and carrying the name > Fedora would probably have to carry it as well. If sendmail was in Ring 2, > it probably would be fine to choose whether to install it or not as it > wasn't a guaranteed part of the BaseOS. [You could also > s@sendmail@/usr/bin/sendmail@ in that analysis if you so chose]) /me notes the the whole "ring concept" is utter nonsense but that's a different topic ... -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
