On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 23:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 April 2007 13:38:15 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> You don't expose them really to any additional risks by default. If the
>> delta rpms are already mirrored, yum just ignores them without the
>> plugin. Since the plugin is already in Fedora Extras users just would
>> have install them explicitly to use the delta rpms. The plugin falls
>> back to downloading the full rpm if the delta rpm fails or is not
>> available.
>
> It is still not something I want to do to a released product, or even Fedora 7
> after the feature freeze. The generation of the delta rpms, the layout, the
> use of the plugin, etc.. these are all codepaths that need more
> exposure/testing during an open development phase. I think it's great that
> you guys have gotten it to the point it is now, and I really look forward to
> seeing it get wider use once we start up Fedora 8. I just don't want to add
> new features/functionality into 7 and 6.
+10. I am in complete agreement with Jesse here.
So let me ask. Who or which team decides this? What about application
defaults or which packages to install by default? Is this supposed to be
handled by release engineering or FESCo?
Things that get into the spins are handled by rel-eng. If there's
dispute, it goes up to FESCo.
I have a suggestion for a package to be installed by default that I
would like to see someone or a team take ownership and give me a
decisive response.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/2007-March/msg00032.html
You should start a separate thread on that. At first glance, it doesn't
make any sense to me at all as to how that would be useful on a liveCD.
josh