Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:32 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > - What about watching films, listening to music? I think it is a basic
> >> >> > requirement for students (at least for me).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe we should add a that a student should be able to play videos and
> >> >> > listen to music. It should be easy to install required codes
> >> >> > (free/nonfree/patente) if they are available in the repositories (yes, I
> >> >> > mean rpmfusion)
> >> >>
> >> >> This would require approval beyond the WG, as it goes against Fedora's
> >> >> policies.  Note, I am not saying you are incorrect, just that it's a
> >> >> conversation to be had elsewhere first.
> >> >
> >> > Ensuring that it's possible/easy to install plugins from third party
> >> > repositories when appropriate if those third party repositories are
> >> > defined is not, I don't believe, against any policies, or we could not
> >> > have the automatic codec installation mechanisms in Totem and Rhythmbox.
> >> > (Which, as I read it, is the kind of thing this comment was about).
> >>
> >> The codec search only works if you have repositories configured that
> >> have packages that match the Provides (as far as I understand).
> >> Fedora policy says that we do not promote or install such
> >> repositories.  This is the "don't talk about RPMFusion" rule.
> >>
> >> So sure, we can have software that will pull things in if the user has
> >> done some manual intervention.  We just cant, currently, do that thing
> >> for them.
> >
> > Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I just think this is all the
> > _original poster_ was talking about, not any kind of automatic
> > configuration of such repositories. (Or at least, you can read it that
> > way).
> 
> OK.  I guess that's fine, but it seems like a non-goal to me.  I mean,
> it already works that way.  All adding it to the PRD would do would
> make an easy thing to check off the list as "met".

I suppose we should go back to the OP and ask for clarification of
exactly what the idea was, at this point :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net