On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 11:30 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 11:13 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > > > It actually is dependent on eclipse to build. And tomcat is > > > increasingly a "core" server piece similar to php[1] > > > > So why is it that servers have to be in core? Why not move tomcat > > outside of core? What's the justification for having it in core? Hell, > > same with php. The only thing I can think of that depends on php in core > > is squirrelmail. Zope's not in core, it's in extras and its a server. > > Why is it that the desktop has to be in core? I think we're moving > towards having _less_ distinction between Core and Extras instead of > more. Your argument now is CD space, but we're going to want to get to > where we have CDs of Extras and at that point, the distinction between > the two becomes less clear. > > I've been one of the strongest proponents of shrinking Core for a while > now, but I'm starting to wonder if that's really the answer. But > starting that argument now isn't going to accomplish anything. It's not > the sort of thing that's going to happen today or tomorrow. And if I > spend all day replying to mail on threads like this, I'm not going to > get to any of the useful stuff that people want to see done :-/ > Then how about we approach this from another angle: new packages[1] go to extras and get moved to core if they are valuable. That way we don't see lots and lots of packages added to core just b/c their maintainer happens to work at red hat. -sv [1] This excludes packages that are a part of base functionality - in that I mean dependency packages that anaconda and the like require to do their jobs. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
