XFCE

[Michael Tiemann]

On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 20:19, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 21:48 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2005 at 12:35:39PM -0700, OmniUni wrote:
> > 
> > > My idea is not so much about making a 2 CD version of Fedora Core as it is 
> > > about putting together a light linux distro that has many of the benefits of 
> > > Fedora Core, including compatability, anaconda, bluecurve where possible, 
> > > system-config-* utilities, and a fast release cycle.
> > 
> > Of course you are free to do that, there may even be people here
> > interested in that and willing to help.
> > 
> > You just can not call it "Fedora Core <something>".
> > 
> What kind of requirements might there be to calling it Fedora Lite?

IANAL, but in every discussion I've had with people inside and outside
of Red Hat, the assumption is that if it meets the Fedora contribution
guidelines (i.e., 100% free and/or open source software) then you can
call it Fedora Whatever as long as it doesn't step on anybody's toes. 
Now, calling something Fedora Core Whatever steps on Fedora Core, so
that's a no-no.  But IMHO, Fedora Live and Fedora Mini are two great
names just waiting to become stand-alone distributions of the Fedora
family.  (Fedora Live would be something that boots as a Live CD and has
the property that once booted, there is some /trivial/ way to say "Go
ahead--make my day" and transform the live instance into a Fedora Core
installation.  Fedora Mini sounds like what you are trying to do:
establish some minimal set of packages that can provide a decent
experience in limited size environments.  Again, it would be a bonus
feature if there was a non-conflicting way of "updating" Fedora Mini to
become Fedora Core plus some Fedora Extras packages.  I think that
having packages in Mini that are not in Extras would lead to all sorts
of pain.)

>   In
> one of the many proposals before Fedora Extras came out, there was the
> idea that alternate and associated distributions could be spun out of
> the FC+FE combination.  That's not an official goal right now, but it
> seems it's possible (and desirous to some :-) to do.

Agreed.

> Open questions:
> - What infrastructure beyond the existing would these other respinnings
> of Fedora need?

See above...I think that anything that makes it natural to get to Fedora
Core for any installation that is missing Core packages is one good
design characteristic.  The second, and perhaps more important is that
any purpose-specific set of packages be composed of packages that are
represented in Extras.  If Fedora Foo has packages not in Extras, then
it's a bit like working w/o regard to upstream.  Since so much of Fedora
is designed around a process of working with upstream, breaking the link
to Extras is likely to break other things when you (or your users) least
expect it.

> - What communications with current FE and FC packagers?

If Fedora Whatever is just a special combo of Extras + Core, then not a
whole lot of special communication is needed--just pay attention to
what's upstream and make clear how you are trying to make your
combination of requirements work using whatever composition of packages
you need.

> - Are we willing to "bless" some with Fedora XXX names?  Under what
> conditions?

It's up to the Steering Committee, but I would certainly lobby for
this.  I would really like to see Fedora GIS (a rich GRASS-based
environment with all the bells and whistles of Postgis, R, Java, etc),
Fedora 3D (a rich Blender-based environment with all sorts of rendering,
scripting, paint, image processing, gphoto, and other tools), and a
Fedora AV (a rich environment for audio synthesis, sequencing, editing,
mixing, publishing, plus video import, editing, compositing, publishing,
all 100% open source based around...what?).

M

> -Toshio
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> -- 
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list