Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

[Bill Nottingham]

Matthew Miller (mattdm at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:48:12AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> > > bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
> > > with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
> > > okay to change software defaults in a way that isn't currently allowed.
> > > Is there a "way that isn't currently allowed" actually? Spins can put
> > > anything into %post, and some do modify configuration. (If nothing else, the
> > > desktop spins change the default desktop...)
> > And sendmail/rsyslog was one example. So yes, spin already do so. But stating
> > this formally/documented way would be worthy.
> 
> That was a particularly gray area because it's simply a matter of installing
> a package or not. Installing rsyslog but configuring it to log differently
> than the standard is another level of change (although of course also murky
> when other applications change their behavior based on the presence or
> absence of some other package).

Yeah; the idea behind the guideline is that you want documentation to be
generally valid, for example - if you have resources that have to say "if
you're on X, do A, if you're on Y, do B..." it gets very unwieldy very fast,
and makes it much harder for users as well. We obviously are going to have
some of this with the assorted desktop spins, but imagine that level of
differences spread to yum vs apt (as a theoretical bad example.)

Bill