Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal
caillon at redhat.com
Thu Oct 8 21:29:34 UTC 2009
On 10/08/2009 05:10 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:04 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is
>>> equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora".
>> It's not? I thought all fedora spins had to be 'fedora'. And why is the
>> kde or xfce spin necessarily less 'fedora' than any other? Isn't it that
>> way by the decision of the board?
> They have to be Fedora in that they have to be composed from bits that
> are in Fedora CVS, sure.
> If you're trying to get me to say that some spins are more equal than
> others: some spins are more equal than others.I think that's manifest
> from history, and from the amount of developer effort present in the
> various spins. I think that explicit acknowledgement of this is a
> positive thing for the distribution and the project.
The Board has already acknowledged this when we made the desktop spin
the default. We cited pretty much every point you made; both proposals
that were brought to the table (one by Spot and one by myself)
explicitly mentioned all those points).
I think we should bring back codeina so we'd have something to do other
than keep answering the same questions over and over in different ways...
More information about the fedora-advisory-board