Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins
awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Jan 31 18:53:17 UTC 2014
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 11:22 +0000, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:03:48 -0500 (EST)
> Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> > What this does reveal is a bigger problem: that the audiences of at
> > least some of the spins are not aware of this relationship to the
> > larger Fedora ecosystem. This would indicate that the "dropping" or
> > de-promoting the spins might lead the users of them to believe that
> > the functionality they provided was removed from Fedora. While it is
> > not a correct perception, it is nonetheless one that will occur (to
> > some degree no matter how we advertise things) if some or all spins
> > go away. It's a point that clearly merits consideration.
> As long as "audience" is kept informed I think most thing will be fine,
> But, I'm am a bit worried by "some" who are of the opinion if not Gnome,
> then dump it. Without the option to install any pkg that may not have
> the G word in it's name or origin.
> Personally, I know currently, most DEs' can be installed with yum
> groupinstall. But, that may not always be the case.
I haven't seen any indication that anyone wants that to change as part
of .next. What we're currently discussing is basically a deliverables
question: what collections-of-packages-in-some-sort-of-lump do we want
to release, under what names and branding, with what level of support,
etc etc etc. But I haven't seen anything in even the most radical
proposals which involves dumping non-Product bits from the repos.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
More information about the devel