Tet (sta282(a)astradyne.co.uk) said:
>Read the last 512 messages sent to the list. Sheesh. :)
You have a point. But at the same time, there are still unanswered
questions. Who made the final decision about which packages were to
go? Bill Nottingham? Elliot? Someone else?
What passes for the Technical Committee made the decisions via
consensus; there was a meeting a couple of days ago.
What was the rationale
for their selection -- space saving, obviously, but why package A
rather than package B?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras_2fCoreVsExtras
is a short description of some of the criteria uses. Applying this
to the deletions:
- aumix: replaced by alsamixer/amixer/etc
- abiword/gnumeric/koffice: office suite work is concentrated on OOo
- xemacs: duplicate of Emacs functionality
- cfengine: not Core functionality, not used by anything in Core
- gv/ggv/gpdf: duplicate of functionality of evince/kpdf/etc
- tuxracer/bzflag: games
- octave/lapack: not Core functionality
- XFCE: duplicate functionality with respect to GNOME, KDE, etc
- exim: duplicate functionality with respect to postfix, sendmail;
it has been in Core less than postfix, sendmail, and isn't as
SELinux-able as postfix
Honestly, if Extras was launched before FC2, I doubt that XFCE would
have been in Core to begin with.
These criteria have been used in past releases for various packages
as well; see removals of devlabel, quanta, licq, chromium, printman,
etc. in FC3, gtoaster, xtraceroute, mars-nwe, nmh, imap, etc. in FC2.
We're currently investigating how trademarks relate to spins of ISOs
from Extras, especially if ISOs aren't done on the FTP site. Once
there's some clarification there, it would be *easy* to write short
scripts, etc. to generate ISOs of Extras subsets, and I suspect
that would be done.
Bill