On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:27 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 16:46 -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 19:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > So "someone in Red Hat makes a decision" is not the problem. Unclear > > > criteria, lack of "what is suitable functionality for core" policy etc > > > is a problem (you can argue how big a problem it is of course). > > > > In a strictly "functional" sense, all that *needs* to be in Core are: > > 1) those packages that enable network/Internet access and installation > > of more packages > > 2) those packages that people will likely use on systems that will never > > have network/Internet access > > I don't agree with you. For me, Core needs to be a Core linux distro. > That includes a desktop, browser, media player, mail client and an > office suite. Eg core needs to satisfy the basic goals a target audience > has with a distro. Arguably, desktop, media player and office suite falls under group 2). Browser and mail client could be argues to fall under group 1) as they enable users to get more packages by providing a convenient fashion by which to get information about new packages. > In addition I think core needs the basic tools that developers would use > to develop extras like packages. Eg a compiler set for the common > languages, make, patch and other supporting stuff like that. (this also > follows from being self consistent and self-hosting, I think Core needs > to be self hosting as well) Compilers and development tools could be considered to fall into group 2). Perhaps it would be clearer to define group 2) as "those packages that people will likely use on systems that will never *require* network/Internet access" as packages that require Internet access but don't enable Internet access could just as easily be gotten from the Internet/Extras. So there is no fundamental disagreement here. I am not pushing to gut Core. I am just offering some simple "what is suitable functionality for core" policy guidelines. I think those above draw a fundamental line without being all inclusive with the right weasel-wording. But they do just push the question back to "What usage patterns are you targeting Fedora for?" in order to draw a line around group 2) packages. By your comments I would guess that those patterns would be: - self-hosting (those who want to build their Core from scratch using the tools in Core) - developers (compilers, languages, IDEs) - office workers (graphical desktop, office suite, CD burning) - home users (graphical desktop, media players, CD burning) There are certainly other patterns and those above could be better defined but there is a line drawn to have a discussion around. /Mike -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
