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 ?
DaveT.
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list