On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 23:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 April 2007 13:38:15 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> You don't expose them really to any additional risks by default. If the > >> delta rpms are already mirrored, yum just ignores them without the > >> plugin. Since the plugin is already in Fedora Extras users just would > >> have install them explicitly to use the delta rpms. The plugin falls > >> back to downloading the full rpm if the delta rpm fails or is not > >> available. > > > > It is still not something I want to do to a released product, or even Fedora 7 > > after the feature freeze. The generation of the delta rpms, the layout, the > > use of the plugin, etc.. these are all codepaths that need more > > exposure/testing during an open development phase. I think it's great that > > you guys have gotten it to the point it is now, and I really look forward to > > seeing it get wider use once we start up Fedora 8. I just don't want to add > > new features/functionality into 7 and 6. +10. I am in complete agreement with Jesse here. > So let me ask. Who or which team decides this? What about application > defaults or which packages to install by default? Is this supposed to be > handled by release engineering or FESCo? Things that get into the spins are handled by rel-eng. If there's dispute, it goes up to FESCo. > I have a suggestion for a package to be installed by default that I > would like to see someone or a team take ownership and give me a > decisive response. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2007-March/msg00032.html You should start a separate thread on that. At first glance, it doesn't make any sense to me at all as to how that would be useful on a liveCD. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
