Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

[Kevin Kofler]

Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Markus Mayer <lotharlutz at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Is there a reaseon why 'web development tools' are listed seperatly? What
>> about C/C++ development tools? Are they just 2nd grade tools?
> 
> No, but they're already implicitly included considering every possible
> DE used for the base of Workstation requires them to build.  They also
> aren't nearly as rapidly released as other tools.

The stuff required to build things is only a subset of the tools needed to 
actually develop them. As Markus writes:

>> Am I assuming correctly that 'development environment' includes IDEs,
>> SCM-Systems, editors, ...?

All that stuff is not required for mere builds, but developers will most 
definitely expect it.

For example, a KDE Platform 4 build environment includes:
g++
cmake
qt(4)-devel
kdelibs(4)-devel
and possibly kde-workspace-devel and the like, and that's all.

A KDE Platform 4 DEVELOPMENT environment, on the other hand, includes all 
that plus at least KDevelop (and its dependencies, which include git). Some 
users may also expect Qt Creator, KDbg (standalone GDB frontend), Valgrind 
(with or without the Alleyoop GTK+/GNOME GUI), KCachegrind, standalone git 
GUI frontends (git-cola, qgit), Kdesvn, offline API documentation (qt-doc, 
kdelibs-apidocs, …) etc. (And that does not even include tools for 
translations etc.)

> Trying to come up with something specifically scoped while saying "oh, but
> you should also be able to morph it into something else" isn't going to
> lead to a well defined product.

That's one of the biggest flaws with the Products approach. Fedora used to 
be a consistent and flexible product where you could mix and match whatever 
you wanted, it was all in the same repository and working well together. You 
sound as if it were unreasonable to expect this in the future.

IMHO, the Spins were actually a better approach than this new Products idea.

        Kevin Kofler