Toshio Kuratomi <toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I agree that obvious, easy tools will cause people to "do the right > thing" most of the time. Yes. We need to put forth the effort to come up with extra logo sets and disclaimer/text changes, and make that a simple switch in Anaconda. Again, you force people to be unable to run any Anaconda tools until they set a config setting. > Are we still discussing the policy that those tools need to > fulfill, though? Yes. I just wanted to point out that this is a directly related detail. > I have one new question: > How will RawHide/FE-devel packages fit into this scheme? It's not FC+FE, so it's not Fedora(TM). Again, I suggested "Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party" as long as it is still 100% Redistributable. I'm sure someone could come up with a better name. My argument was to put something into a standard logo/disclaimer set for the Anaconda Tools -- different than the official Fedora releases. > RawHide is a baby eater so a redistribution of Fedora that uses > these packages could well be less stable than usual. As anything that is not stock, binary equivalent or subset of FC+FE. > 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.) Again, come up with an umbrella for them to all fall under, as long as they are 100% redistributable with no legal issues. > 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. Again, there are no guarantees with "Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party" or whatever we call it. > I started this post thinking RawHide should be excluded but now I'm > more divided.... I think anything that is 100% Redistributable with no legal issues (e.g., not Livna.ORG, etc...) is a candidate for this labeling. We want to promote people to use Fedora(TM) as a solid base, as long as they are true to the 100% redistributable and litigation-free of it. It's just not Fedora(TM), but Unofficial Fedora(TM) Third Party. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- I'm a Democrat. No wait, I'm a Republican. Hmm, it seems I'm just whatever someone disagrees with. -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
