Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 17:59 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 12:56 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 11:37 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
In any company with >1 employee, the liklihood of one person not
...
Does the Third Party/OEM have to "recertify" with the Fedora Board if
they want to change/update a package on the release? I'd argue that if
they were merely updating it with newer Fedora content (aka, Fedora
Core/Extras updates), then they do not, but any other changes (adding
new packages not from existing Fedora Works, modifying Fedora Works
beyond what was originally documented and approved) would require a new
"trademark certification".
I'd also like a page on the wiki that lists all approved Third Party/OEM
efforts, where each item links to the documented modifications.
Thoughts?
This is pretty good IMHO. Would it be worthwhile for one of the
guidelines to require that the fedora-release package be
installed/retained? This would dictate that at least the official
repositories are referenced, which would mean that a user of any FCn
$OEM edition would be able to install the full range of official Fedora
software. This would avoid situations in which users complain about a
"broken" $OEM edition which doesn't include expected software.
Perhaps there are other "make or break" packages of this type.
fedora-logos? kernel*? Just a thought...
I reckon this is a good idea. It would mean that an OEM system installed
elsewhere can at least have easy (if not automated) Fedora security
updates installed (as long as it has a net connection).
In terms of naming/branding, another possibility would be "built upon",
where an OEM uses their own branding but refers to the underlying
work/branding of Fedora. Something like "Company Media Experts releases
the Presentation Publisher tm 4 system built upon Fedora tm" ?
DaveT.
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
