seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:06 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:06 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 10:29 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I don't think it is particularly difficult, but there are a number of
constraints (like
keeping all trademarked logos in a separate package). What we need
before making
any decisions here is a summary of the current situation (what "artwork"
packages
do we have, how do they interact, also wrt to derived distributions,
etc) and a list
of goals for a reorganization. I'm sure interested community members can
take a
whack at that.
were you planning in changes in this area vis anaconda?
One thing that was discussed a little at FUDCon was moving some of the
trademarked logo bits into a separate "branding" repository.
That doesn't really have much to do with redhat-artwork, though.
Historically speaking, redhat-artwork was created to contain all
Bluecurve bits (and could as well have been called "bluecurve-artwork",
it was just named prior to the name Bluecurve and with the thought of
letting the theme change over time...)
Matthias,
So it sounds like all that needs to happen is:
1. rename the pkg to system-artwork (add an obsoletes redhat-artwork)
2. get rid of the bluecurve libs into another pkg
3. profit!
Does that sound right to you
Moving the libs to another package lets redhat-artwork become noarch,
sure. It doesn't address
most of the other issues with artwork being spread over several packages
in a confusing way...
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
