Bill Nottingham wrote: > There's two conflicting schools of thought here: > > 1) get Extras going, move chunks of Core to Extras, and have > Core be 2-3 binary CDs > 2) get Extras going, but put even more stuff in Core, have Core > go to 5,6,7 CDs > > Personally, I'd go for door #1 If only there was a set of guidelines..a Fedora Core Code... outlining a set of technical/non-technical milestones/checklist/objectives/priorities that packages should try to meet as part of being nominated for inclusion in Core. And conversely the same guidelines would be useful to nominate packages to be removed from Core that are found to be...lacking. Guidelines/checklist would make it easier for 'rational' people in the community to nominate a specific piece of software out of a myriad of project options that sort of do the same thing. Having people try to do this based solely on personal opinion about what works best, package by package...is a train wreck. And it's not just a matter of fighting over the package options among a set of alternatives that do similar things. The 2 or 3 binary CD limit also makes it hard to even have one good package included to do all possible things. A better description of the type of role(s) Fedora Core by itself is suppose to fill, would also make it easier to make 'rational' package inclusion/exclusion nominations. Can you really fit a general purpose 'desktop' and general purpose 'server' distro into 2 cds...without making significant compromises in one or the other moving forward? Or is Fedora the "jack of all trades, master of none" distribution. -jef"proud to be a jack"spaleta
