XFCE packages gone?

Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Fri Feb 25 20:02:40 UTC 2005

Tet (sta282 at astradyne.co.uk) said: 
> >Read the last 512 messages sent to the list. Sheesh. :)
> You have a point. But at the same time, there are still unanswered
> questions. Who made the final decision about which packages were to
> go? Bill Nottingham? Elliot? Someone else?

What passes for the Technical Committee made the decisions via
consensus; there was a meeting a couple of days ago.

> What was the rationale
> for their selection -- space saving, obviously, but why package A
> rather than package B?


is a short description of some of the criteria uses. Applying this
to the deletions:

- aumix: replaced by alsamixer/amixer/etc
- abiword/gnumeric/koffice: office suite work is concentrated on OOo
- xemacs: duplicate of Emacs functionality
- cfengine: not Core functionality, not used by anything in Core
- gv/ggv/gpdf: duplicate of functionality of evince/kpdf/etc
- tuxracer/bzflag: games
- octave/lapack: not Core functionality
- XFCE: duplicate functionality with respect to GNOME, KDE, etc
- exim: duplicate functionality with respect to postfix, sendmail;
   it has been in Core less than postfix, sendmail, and isn't as
   SELinux-able as postfix

Honestly, if Extras was launched before FC2, I doubt that XFCE would
have been in Core to begin with.

These criteria have been used in past releases for various packages
as well; see removals of devlabel, quanta, licq, chromium, printman,
etc. in FC3, gtoaster, xtraceroute, mars-nwe, nmh, imap, etc. in FC2.

We're currently investigating how trademarks relate to spins of ISOs
from Extras, especially if ISOs aren't done on the FTP site. Once
there's some clarification there, it would be *easy* to write short
scripts, etc. to generate ISOs of Extras subsets, and I suspect
that would be done.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list