Toshio Kuratomi <toshio(a)tiki-lounge.com> 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(a)ieee.org
http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------
I'm a Democrat. No wait, I'm a Republican. Hmm,
it seems I'm just whatever someone disagrees with.