Fedora 19 Final blocker status: fix and karma requests

drago01 drago01 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 23 17:22:21 UTC 2013

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 09:44 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> 2) We don't have to set a limit at all. Just include the stuff we want
>> to include (and try to optimize that to be as small as possible).
> Let's be realistic: 'trying to optimize that to be as small as possible'
> only happens when we have a limit and start hitting it. Was anyone
> checking and splitting out dependencies, tweaking the package set, and
> looking for unnecessary data to cut out *before* we were filing bugs on
> the size? Nope, no-one was.
> I'm not saying there must be a limit, but I know what's going to happen
> if there isn't one, don't kid yourself: limitless sprawl, and no-one's
> going to bother about size reductions.

See my reply to Matthew.

>> Just because someone decided "there has to be a size limit and if we
>> don't meet that target we block the release" does
>> not mean that this is the right thing to do (note: it isn't). A limit
>> only makes sense if you target a CD.
> As noted in my previous message, we are in fact still targeting optical
> media with the live images: the multi-live DVD image.

Well this is a valid reason to limit the size but not of one specific
spin but all of them jointly.
i.e we have to build it as part of our release and testing process and
spot size problems there etc.

More information about the devel mailing list