Re: Summary of accepted Fedora 20 Changes - week 30

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux