Tet (sta282@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > >Read the last 512 messages sent to the list. Sheesh. :) > > You have a point. But at the same time, there are still unanswered > questions. Who made the final decision about which packages were to > go? Bill Nottingham? Elliot? Someone else? What passes for the Technical Committee made the decisions via consensus; there was a meeting a couple of days ago. > What was the rationale > for their selection -- space saving, obviously, but why package A > rather than package B? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras_2fCoreVsExtras is a short description of some of the criteria uses. Applying this to the deletions: - aumix: replaced by alsamixer/amixer/etc - abiword/gnumeric/koffice: office suite work is concentrated on OOo - xemacs: duplicate of Emacs functionality - cfengine: not Core functionality, not used by anything in Core - gv/ggv/gpdf: duplicate of functionality of evince/kpdf/etc - tuxracer/bzflag: games - octave/lapack: not Core functionality - XFCE: duplicate functionality with respect to GNOME, KDE, etc - exim: duplicate functionality with respect to postfix, sendmail; it has been in Core less than postfix, sendmail, and isn't as SELinux-able as postfix Honestly, if Extras was launched before FC2, I doubt that XFCE would have been in Core to begin with. These criteria have been used in past releases for various packages as well; see removals of devlabel, quanta, licq, chromium, printman, etc. in FC3, gtoaster, xtraceroute, mars-nwe, nmh, imap, etc. in FC2. We're currently investigating how trademarks relate to spins of ISOs from Extras, especially if ISOs aren't done on the FTP site. Once there's some clarification there, it would be *easy* to write short scripts, etc. to generate ISOs of Extras subsets, and I suspect that would be done. Bill
