Bad package selection practices in Fedora packages

[mike cloaked]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 09:52 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>
>> I think the error here is less in the coding in packages than in the
>> design of the default system specifications, specifically the package
>> selection.
>>
>> The errors gnome has committed would seem to be off-topic here, unless
>> the Fedora community still needs more evidence of how far gnome has
>> gone evil, or still needs more fuel for the debate about
>> whether/when/where said evil should be considered necessary.
>>
>> The Fedora community should be able to decide which packages to group
>> together for which installs.
>
> The desktop team decides what packages go into the desktop spin, and
> that's the same group of people as maintain GNOME, and many of them are
> upstream GNOME developers.
>
> Their stated position on tracker - it's been brought up on the desktop
> list before, see
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2011-September/007377.html - is:
>
> "Yeah, tracker is a required dependency of gnome-documents now. As
> Bastien says, we should try to identify and fix possible bugs and
> resource issues upstream."
>
> i.e., Tracker is now part of GNOME and they don't intend to disable it
> by default, but its default configuration could be adjusted (there was
> some discussion in the thread of doing this), and resource consumption
> bugs should be reported upstream and fixed.

If the Gnome decision is for tracker to be there by default then that
is a Gnome dev decision, and Gnome users can switch it off if they
know how to and want to do so - but why was the decision made to set
it up and running for other desktops? Give KDE and XFCE and LXDE users
the choice if they want it but surely the default there should be
"off" and not "on"?
-- 
mike c