On 08/12/2012 11:37, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 12/08/2012 01:25 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 6 December 2012 19:06, Christopher Antila
<crantila@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5 December 2012 18:25:31 Brendan Jones wrote:
<snip>
I think specifically the browser was simply that Konqueror doesn't
really work well enough and people would be surprised not to find a
browser unless they were hoping for a /really/ focused system as it's
such a central part of a computer system these days. (You could even
make a case for it being important to audio production.)
You can probably draw up three categories of stuff to be considered to
various degrees:
1. Audio tools. As many as can realistically be put on there.
2. Non-audio tools that might have an audio creation use, e.g.
Inkscape, webcam software (performance videos), that kind of thing.
Lots of this is already in the base we build on anyway.
3. Things that people will be surprised if they don't find (i.e. you
forget for a second you're on this specialist audio spin and try to do
something a computer normally does). A browser is the most obvious, a
package manager is less obvious, but of course the route by which they
can add anything they do think they need. Probably everything in here
is in the base we build on anyway.
Or in conclusion:
Let's waste our time on audio-specific things
(a.k.a. 'me too')
I think we need to get this locked down by the 11th so all of this is
probably a little to late.
I'm getting conflicting considerations regarding size and composition,
so I'll outline them here.
- Christopher Wickert has stated that a spin should serve a specific
purpose. Packages should be identified for removal that do not meet the
needs of the spin - so not really a size consideration, more about
concept (CC'ed Chris here in case I got this wrong).
- a recent email on the spins list indicated that space and bandwith
issues are real infrastructure concerns regarding the approval of spins
[1]. I don't know if this is more to do with the number of spins of if
this is something that each individual spin should also keep in mind.
I have asked the question on the list and will report back
- for the rest of use the final size of the spin doesn't seem to be an
issue, as long as we have everything we need by default. Having said
that, nice to have packages can be installed with relative ease post
install or into the liveuser overlay.
As an exercise I ran a query on RPM's by size against the latest
compose. This was done in the live environment [2]. I haven't realy gone
through this yet and won't have time to do so until tomorrow.
Any changes from here should be run past our wrangler. I imagine that
any significant additional packages added to the nightly kickstarts will
have to be run by the Spins SIG after the 11th. (Again Christoper this
is what I understand to be the case - please correct me if I'm wrong)
[1]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2012-December/002641.html
[2] http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/projects/fedora-jam-rpm-by-size.txt
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
Looking at that list, there is nothing shouting out "remove me". Not
sure what is pulling in mysql-server though.
Shutter and the fluid-soundfonts (because they are **huge**) are the
only ones I can see myself *maybe* wanting to remove.
But until we know the status for the approval, I don't think we should
mess any more with the kickstart
--
Jørn Lomax
Nestleder Studentutvalget NT-Fak
CS Student University of Tromsø
Blog: http://lurimax.posterous.com/
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
