Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

Markus Mayer lotharlutz at gmx.de
Thu Nov 7 19:35:36 UTC 2013

On 11/05/2013 10:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:32 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>>>>> - What about watching films, listening to music? I think it is a basic
>>>>>>> requirement for students (at least for me).
>>>>>>> Maybe we should add a that a student should be able to play videos and
>>>>>>> listen to music. It should be easy to install required codes
>>>>>>> (free/nonfree/patente) if they are available in the repositories (yes, I
>>>>>>> mean rpmfusion)
>>>>>> This would require approval beyond the WG, as it goes against Fedora's
>>>>>> policies.  Note, I am not saying you are incorrect, just that it's a
>>>>>> conversation to be had elsewhere first.
>>>>> Ensuring that it's possible/easy to install plugins from third party
>>>>> repositories when appropriate if those third party repositories are
>>>>> defined is not, I don't believe, against any policies, or we could not
>>>>> have the automatic codec installation mechanisms in Totem and Rhythmbox.
>>>>> (Which, as I read it, is the kind of thing this comment was about).
>>>> The codec search only works if you have repositories configured that
>>>> have packages that match the Provides (as far as I understand).
>>>> Fedora policy says that we do not promote or install such
>>>> repositories.  This is the "don't talk about RPMFusion" rule.
>>>> So sure, we can have software that will pull things in if the user has
>>>> done some manual intervention.  We just cant, currently, do that thing
>>>> for them.
>>> Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I just think this is all the
>>> _original poster_ was talking about, not any kind of automatic
>>> configuration of such repositories. (Or at least, you can read it that
>>> way).
>> OK.  I guess that's fine, but it seems like a non-goal to me.  I mean,
>> it already works that way.  All adding it to the PRD would do would
>> make an easy thing to check off the list as "met".
> I suppose we should go back to the OP and ask for clarification of
> exactly what the idea was, at this point :)

All I was asking for is the status quo. 3rd party repositories must be 
installed manually, but once they are installed automated codec 
installation should work.

More information about the devel mailing list