Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal
mclasen at redhat.com
Thu Oct 8 21:39:14 UTC 2009
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 14:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Changing things which _should_ be interchangeable frequently points up all
> the ways they are not _really_ interchangeable.
> So there's an unspoken assumption "Since the board defines which spin is
> the default spin", that either spins should be interchangable or at least
> some of them should be interchangable. Perhaps that isn't correct? I can't
> recall a statement by the board to that effect although I do recall
> individual board members saying that you should be able to trade out the
> fedora desktop spin for the kde spin even though we don't.
> zypper vs yum, OTOH, I don't even have a recollection of a board member
> saying as themselves that the package managers in Fedora should be
> interchangable. If that is the case, we should have a list of the features
> that we must make sure that each package manager supports and start testing
> them. I remember multilib was a problem for some package managers and file
> dependencies a problem for others in the past. We'll need to get each of
> the supported package managers up to snuff if we really have a goal of
> making our package management interchangable.
The point I'm trying to get across is that
1) We had a very hard time just changing the default im client, with
people being worried about regressions etc
2) When I propose to change the package manager backend, you tell me
that its hard and we need feature lists and comparisons and whatnot
Yet, changing the default spin is supposed to be easy, just because the
board declared them to be interchangeable ?
I guess it is obvious that I don't think they are interchangeable at
all, nor should they. Just like you don't think that package managers
Anyway, last mail from me on this side show.
More information about the fedora-advisory-board