On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 18:02, Eric Harrison wrote:
> In response to Les' statement that I have a very different opinion about
> respins, that has to be viewed in context. The K12LTSP problem set is
> different than the Fedora problem set, as such it is a apples-to-oranges
> comparison.
>
> I'd love to see official re-spun FC isos, but I certainly understand the
> issues and work involved.
Thanks for responding, Eric. I didn't mean to minimize the
effort you put in, but just point out that it can be done
and it is a great service for the users.
> As Les notes, K12LTSP is a stock updated fedora plus a few add-ons
> (almost all Fedora Extras packages these days). Not only does it carry
> the extra QA baggage of a respin, but it is not a 100% "pure" respin. As
> such, I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to recognize K12LTSP as a
> re-spun Fedora Core.
I think a "pure" respin has been arranged elsewhere now. However
on a second thought, much of the reason I prefer the k12ltsp
version has to do with your choices about extra packages and
default settings for a lot of things not even directly relating
to LTSP and getting the updates included was just a nice
side effect. Perhaps going forward life would be easier if
(a) fedora had a "seriously-minimal" install that was just
enough to get yum working and (b) things that are almost-rebrands
could be easily built with an rpm that adds one or more
repositories where high-level choices are done in meta-packages
or groups. This would permit installing a minimum of outdated
code and let all concerned parties maintain their philosophical
purity concerning what they permit in their own repositories
without making a complete rebranding operation necessary.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
