> nality people expect from a consumer oriented > > linux distro > > > This is what needs to be defined "what people expect" I'm sure you have > an idea of what you think should be in there but it's not. it's also dynamic over time. LAMP is probably undisputed a "complete" graphical desktop is more fuzzy (after all, what is "complete".. and which one) Note that I very much am talking about functionalities (although LAMP suggests implementation); the actual packages chosen can vary over time, and for the most part I think providing 1 is enough. (there are exceptions, eg gnome/kde politics or cases where the packages are very different, like vi versus gnome-edit) > > > layer 2 of the union > > "extras" - more "obscure" functionality for example because it's a > > relatively small userbase but also because it can be new and emerging > > things. In addition this can be alternative implementations to core > > functionality. An example of this could be wu-ftpd or xfce or .. fwiw I'm not arguing the current split is the right one. It's full of legacy choices for example. Ideally there'll be a discussion at some point about which functionalities could/should be in the "core" union layer. And which are more suitable for higher layers. > > So far in extras we have examples of packages with "small" userbases as: > xmms well arguable the gnome desktop has a media player already. In that sense "xmms" is a "alternative implementation" of "media player". > abiword again, alternative implementation of "office suite" > bittorrent given that BT is the main distribution mechanism I think this one could/should be in core. > cyrus-imapd alternative implementation of dovecot etc > > Now you tell me does that list make sense to you? It doesn't to me. > I figure that people making a beowulf cluster can learn how to yum > install ccs lam magma and friends on their own drawing from extras > instead of having to have them in core. I'd go further and say that "beowulf" should be a repo on top of extras given how specialized it is. > but most of the beowulf tools are already IN core. and I'm arguing that might be wrong ;) > This is what I'm talking about - right now the distinction b/t what gets > into core and what goes into extras is more or less 'where does the > packager work' then I don't agree with how that works and would favor and advocate a more "functionality" way of looking at it. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
