multi-desktop DVD criteria

Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert at
Fri Jan 14 11:51:07 UTC 2011

Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 01:07 -0600 schrieb Christofer C. Bell:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Christoph Wickert
> <christoph.wickert at> wrote:
> >
> > Last but not least I'd like to point out that *none* of the current
> > media meets the requirements. With that list we must not give out any
> > physical media.
> "This page is a draft only. It is still under construction and content
> may change. Do not rely on the information on this page."
> You've pointed out several times, in several threads, that the current
> Fedora media does not meet the posted policy and that under the posted
> policy we should stop distributing any media.  Please stop posting
> this as it's disingenuous and, frankly, FUD.  

You think it's FUD? Please allow me to name some unmet items then:

"Media must have Fedora-themed artwork"

By the time they get approved, the artwork is not ready yet. I wonder
why I have to present the artwork as a requirement for approval.

"Artwork must clearly describe what is on the media. Example: "Fedora
Desktop, i686 architecture"

WTF is the "Fedora Desktop"? The other desktops are named KDE, LXDE and
Xfce, nobody knows what the "Fedora Desktop" is. And why does the
install DVD have the icons of Xfce and LXDE on it, when these desktops
are not on the DVD?

"Artwork must clearly describe what is on the media. Example: "Fedora
Desktop, i686 architecture""

This is not a clear description, see above

"If Fedora Design Team produced artwork is desired, this must be added
to Fedora Design Team schedule by Alpha."

Spin owners cannot add something to the design team#s schedule, they can
only file tickets in their trac, but this is not a guarantee that the
artwork is done in in time. I have tickets sitting in that trac for
several releases now.

"Must have an approved test plan on file with the Fedora Quality
Assurance team
Test plan should be written involving members of the QA team 
Test plan must be executed by someone, with review by a member of the QA
team. NB: this requires at least 2 people to participate in the testing.
The above must be in place in sufficient time to allow testing, and
remediation of uncovered issues, to occur"

*None* of this was is part of the spins process.

"The list of SRPMs used in the creation of the ISO image must be
recorded in the correspondingsource git tree"

*None* of the media we ship ATM is in that tree, see;a=tree;f=srpmlists;hb=HEAD

As you can see: Given these requirements, all media we hand out fail
more or less. You still think this is FUD?

> The document on which
> you base your claims is a draft, not an official policy statement.

Ok, this means I don't need to meet the requirements to get the
approval? Glad to hear that. ;)


More information about the advisory-board mailing list