Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?

[Adam Miller]

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:15 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
>>
>> Your example doesn't work, Xubuntu is still bound to the package set
>> in the Ubuntu repositories in the same sense that the Xfce Spin is
>> bound to the package set in the Fedora repositories. The difference is
>> that we understand that the Xfce Spin isn't a fork and shouldn't be
>> presented as a completely separate project.
>
> This only works if your special interest groups are completely
> segregated, and that they agree on how the shared packages work.  But
> what if you don't?  What if the Desktop (gnome) set wants the newest
> versions of PolicyKit, of NetworkManager, of DeviceKit, etc..  but the
> KDE group doesn't have any software that works with those, and instead
> wants the older versions they do have software to work with.  How do you
> resolve this conflict of interest?  Who wins?
<snip>

I thought the whole point of having a "Default" is saying that it is
what would "win" and I was under the impression that had all been
sorted out by this point.

-AdamM

-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
---------------------------------------------------------
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments