PROPOSAL: Core size reduction "bug day"

[Neil Horman]

Warren Togami wrote:

> David Nielsen wrote:
>
>>
>> But is there actually any work going on in this area or is this one of
>> those chicken and egg things, Extras task has not been clearly defined
>> and we won't define it since there is no real Extras to relate to.
>>
>> Either way we should start to seriously debate what tasks Core needs to
>> do, and work to avoid duplication in task completion.
>>
>> - David
>
>
> "Extras not defined" is FUD spread by certain individuals who have 
> refused to cooperate in a collaborative project.  When Extras happens 
> it will initially be a quick import of everything we have now.  
> Lieutenants chosen among community members will act as a gatekeeper 
> allowing stuff in.  Updates to existing packages will be allowed in 
> very quickly like current Extras policy, except directly through CVS.  
> New package additions will however will go through a high level of 
> scrutiny.  Of course all of this depends entirely on how much we 
> generally trust the contributor.
>
> Warren
>
>
I'll throw my hat into this debate behind Warren here.  After reading 
this thread, it seems to me that the decision to make a package part of 
core or not, is more one of some alternate agenda, rather than one of 
need for a packages core functionality, as the name suggests.  Extras is 
the home for any package which at least part of the community feels a 
need for, but for which the maintainer couldn't, or didn't care to 
maneuver  into core.  Amusignly enough, it seems to me that core is the 
project without clear definition.  I for one see no problem with guting 
core down to the installer, kernel, base filesystem utils, 
yum/up2date/etc, and anything else that we can squeeze onto one or two 
cd's.  Someone can then make a good cottage industry out of burning cd's 
for the extras channel for those without hefty internet access.