If we control what is
indexed, then development could continue as part of a Fedora
sub-project. i.e.
fedora.redhat.com could implement a
DMCA/Fedora-compliant implementation (albeit limited), while Brad's full
version could be hosted elsewhere. This probably defeats the purpose of
Brad's goals for the Tracker however and wouldn't be very practical..
It's not outside the realm of possibility. Having a more selective
frontend with only Core and Extras packages at the "official" site would
not be particularly difficult. It'd just be the same software with a
smaller set of repositories indexed in the db. I'd prefer if the
selective Tracker at least included a link to and explanation of the
more complete version.
The main issue is simply one of cost-benefit: Is it worth the extra
visibility/officialness to have two interfaces to the data? What do we
stand to lose by keeping Tracker a single, separate entity from the
fedora.redhat.com stuff? As I see it, a sense of officialness and making
the Tracker easier to find are the two biggest things. Both would be
nice, but could be done without.
I don't know. I could go either way on this. Anybody (especially those
who can lay down requirements wrt more official inclusion into the
distro) feel strongly either way?
--Brad