Unwanted RPM dependencies - grub v logos

David Timms dtimms at iinet.net.au
Mon Jun 4 19:30:45 UTC 2007

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Monday 04 June 2007 14:17:11 Stefan Held wrote:
>> Would the solution with isolated grub graphics harm anyone?
> We have something of a mandate to keep all the trademarked content in one 
> package, fedora-logos.  Thus fedora-logos tends to be required by a lot of 
> things, but since it drops files into application directories, fedora-logos 
> itself requires many things so that there are no unowned directories or so 
> that the right application owns it's directories.  This is perhaps one case 
> where we can forgo the policy on directory ownership.
Given the wiki information noted by Rahul about the direction startup is 
planned to take, and what I would see as some risk in the "bits" 
required being ready in time, we could make the changes to grub and 
fedora-logos now and get it out there, when the risk is low - a long 
time to prove the changes are fine.

If something better comes along before T1 {
20 July 2007 	F8 Test1 development freeze
1 August 2007   F8 Test1 release
20 August 2007  F8 FEATURE freeze } then that would supersede the change 
I was suggesting.

Perhaps there has already been major development in this area, if not, 
it seems rather tight to achieve in 6 or 10 weeks will be enough time.

Anyway, I don't think I mentioned that I'm putting my hand up for the 
packaging if there is at least a chance it will be used, I'd rather not 
waste time though if there is going to be an outright "no" to the 
suggestion ?


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list