On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 08:50 -0700, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > I basically wanted to point out that we should be addressing the real > _legal_ issues at the Anaconda tools themselves. If you make it easy > for people to change the logos with standard disclaimers right in the > installer, people _will_ do it. > I agree that obvious, easy tools will cause people to "do the right thing" most of the time. Are we still discussing the policy that those tools need to fulfill, though? I have one new question: How will RawHide/FE-devel packages fit into this scheme? RawHide is a baby eater so a redistribution of Fedora that uses these packages could well be less stable than usual. OTOH, sometimes fixes for problems only appear in RawHide or take quite some time to be pushed back to the previous Core release. So the, "Fedora Bleeding GNOME Linux", "Fedora AIGLX Linux", or "Fedora r300 LiveCD Linux" would pretty much have to pull from RawHide. (Note that only one of my three examples would be targetted at RawHide long term. The others would be folded back into mainline in FC+1 or FC+2. I think a lot of RawHide targetted redistributions would be this way; short-term RawHide, long-term either the need goes away or they retarget against a Fedora Core branch after the newer packages go in.) Another issue is that RawHide binary packages will disappear after a few new pushes so the versions of packages these distributions are based on won't be available from official Fedora Repositories anymore. The same thing could potentially happen with Fedora Updates, though, which I am assuming would be included in the "FC + FE" package set. I started this post thinking RawHide should be excluded but now I'm more divided.... -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
