seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:06 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:06 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 10:29 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it is particularly difficult, but there are a number of
>>> constraints (like
>>> keeping all trademarked logos in a separate package). What we need
>>> before making
>>> any decisions here is a summary of the current situation (what
"artwork"
>>> packages
>>> do we have, how do they interact, also wrt to derived distributions,
>>> etc) and a list
>>> of goals for a reorganization. I'm sure interested community members can
>>> take a
>>> whack at that.
>>>
>> were you planning in changes in this area vis anaconda?
>>
> One thing that was discussed a little at FUDCon was moving some of the
> trademarked logo bits into a separate "branding" repository.
>
> That doesn't really have much to do with redhat-artwork, though.
> Historically speaking, redhat-artwork was created to contain all
> Bluecurve bits (and could as well have been called "bluecurve-artwork",
> it was just named prior to the name Bluecurve and with the thought of
> letting the theme change over time...)
>
Matthias,
So it sounds like all that needs to happen is:
1. rename the pkg to system-artwork (add an obsoletes redhat-artwork)
2. get rid of the bluecurve libs into another pkg
3. profit!
Does that sound right to you
Moving the libs to another package lets redhat-artwork become noarch,
sure. It doesn't address
most of the other issues with artwork being spread over several packages
in a confusing way...