Summary of accepted Fedora 20 Changes - week 30

[drago01]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 05:09:54PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On 25 July 2013 16:59, Billy Crook <billycrook at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> Given the amount of time that he spent on the mailing-list fighting for those features, then it looks like a waste of time, that work has been done.
>> >
>> > Unfeatures technically.  He wanted to remove features from the Default
>> > spin.   Subtracting functionality is not a feature.  He wanted an
>> > unfeature.
>> >
>>
>> No he wanted out of the default install. We have a badly defined
>> naming scheme which is causing confusion:
>>
>> default install -> what you get when you put the DVD in and do a click
>> through install.
>> default spin -> The GNOME desktop livecd.
>>
>> Spins are managed by their respective "teams":
>> default has been GNOME and managed by GNOME sig
>> kde is managed by KDE sig
>> xfce is managed by XFCE sig
>> etc etc
>>
>> So I would say that the GNOME team is within its rights in managing
>> its spin. Whether it is named default etc is someone else's problem.
>>
> This has come up before and I think it's just plain unclear :-(
>
> The problem is that the desktop spin and the default spin are kinda two
> different roles but they are occupied by the same Product.  In browsing old
> tickets, I see some times when fesco has decided the default spin didn't
> have to do what other other things did and sometimes when fesco said they
> did.  AFAICS, there's been no generalized policy put into place in regards
> to this.  So it's something that is decided on in every case where it comes
> up.
>
> I don't think anyone thought they were doing anything wrong by making the
> change in the desktop spin but because the desktop spin has more than one
> owner, I've sent it back to FESCo to vote on whether allowing this change
> there is something we intended or not.

Well it is a desktop spin after all. Most of the "keep sendmail and
syslog" arguments
where more server related things. And the "but what if I install app
foo that requires syslog" ..
well the app has to put in rpm requires. Like for pretty much everything else.


> (/me notes that if mattdm's Ring 1 was defined, this might be somewhat
> easier to decide upon.  If sendmail was in Ring 1 it would be an expected
> part of the Fedora Platform.  Anything general purpose and carrying the name
> Fedora would probably have to carry it as well.  If sendmail was in Ring 2,
> it probably would be fine to choose whether to install it or not as it
> wasn't a guaranteed part of the BaseOS. [You could also
> s at sendmail@/usr/bin/sendmail@ in that analysis if you so chose])

/me notes the the whole "ring concept" is utter nonsense but that's a
different topic ...