On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:23 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/26/2013 01:47 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> Unless you are willing to change the definition of "default" from >> "spin" to "product", and making product something more broadly >> governed, you're going to be stuck playing these games. If you aren't >> willing to do that, then you're limited to asking spins to adhere to >> concepts of what FESCo thinks should be defaults. >> >> So the choice you have is to work with the existing structure and find >> the spin that best fits the default criteria, or enforce rules on a >> spin because it is "default" which both restricts it compared to other >> spins and elevates it beyond spin status at the same time. > > > Or the third option change/redefine the existing structure to meet something > that actually reflects the current state of the project and drop the entire > concept of an default... > > We have administrators that have been complaining about removal of this and > that from the "defaults" which also will complain about any $future removal > as well and you have to ask yourself why aren't those administrators > participating in the existing server sub-community and help design and shape > what "perfect server" looks like and which components should be in it. > > There they can influence what will be on a spin or better yet ask infra for > a git repo to host all the ks file they come up with, which later can either > be downloaded by all the administrators in the world or the installer can be > pointed at it. > > Practical, simple, useful no overhead to releng like there are with spins > since the server sub-communiy never release iso but only ks files and it > gives the sub-community full control how those ks files are shaped and > what's on them. > > Heck maybe the Anaconda team would be willing to come up with or accept > patches that will even present this in the installer in a spoke in a user > friendly manner. > > Seriously we need to drop entire concept of an default before it tears the > community apart. Having no default(s) means we are no longer a distribution but a collection of packages. That's a way to move towards irrelevance. As for shipping pre built ks files for specific needs. We could try to do that this is not mutually exclusive to having a default for user that either don't want or can't choose their package set. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
