suggestion: move all java packages to extras

[Michael Wiktowy]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:27 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 16:46 -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 19:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > So "someone in Red Hat makes a decision" is not the problem. Unclear
> > > criteria, lack of "what is suitable functionality for core" policy etc
> > > is a problem (you can argue how big a problem it is of course).
> > 
> > In a strictly "functional" sense, all that *needs* to be in Core are:
> > 1) those packages that enable network/Internet access and installation
> > of more packages
> > 2) those packages that people will likely use on systems that will never
> > have network/Internet access
> 
> I don't agree with you. For me, Core needs to be a Core linux distro.
> That includes a desktop, browser, media player, mail client and an
> office suite. Eg core needs to satisfy the basic goals a target audience
> has with a distro.

Arguably, desktop, media player and office suite falls under group 2).
Browser and mail client could be argues to fall under group 1) as they
enable users to get more packages by providing a convenient fashion by
which to get information about new packages.

> In addition I think core needs the basic tools that developers would use
> to develop extras like packages. Eg a compiler set for the common
> languages, make, patch and other supporting stuff like that. (this also
> follows from being self consistent and self-hosting, I think Core needs
> to be self hosting as well)

Compilers and development tools could be considered to fall into group
2). Perhaps it would be clearer to define group 2) as "those packages
that people will likely use on systems that will never *require*
network/Internet access" as packages that require Internet access but
don't enable Internet access could just as easily be gotten from the
Internet/Extras.

So there is no fundamental disagreement here. I am not pushing to gut
Core. I am just offering some simple "what is suitable functionality for
core" policy guidelines. I think those above draw a fundamental line
without being all inclusive with the right weasel-wording.

But they do just push the question back to "What usage patterns are you
targeting Fedora for?" in order to draw a line around group 2) packages.

By your comments I would guess that those patterns would be:
- self-hosting (those who want to build their Core from scratch using
the tools in Core)
- developers (compilers, languages, IDEs)
- office workers (graphical desktop, office suite, CD burning)
- home users (graphical desktop, media players, CD burning)

There are certainly other patterns and those above could be better
defined but there is a line drawn to have a discussion around.

/Mike