rpmfusion based spin

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Andreas Thienemann wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> 
>> You're right, I'm unable to think of a way that would currently work. It 
>> could be done, but it'd reintroduce the "Do you want to use any 
>> additional media (...)" dialog in anaconda and would only appear *after* 
>> the initial installation is done already.
> 
> Exactly. Furthermore, it's questionable if we'd ever get this code into 
> upstream anaconda.
>  

I think that if this is the absolute best way to provide an add-on 
product to genuine Fedora, for use during the installation procedure, 
there's a solid case to make for getting the code in.

> [The rpmfusion assistant... ]
>> Instead, I'd just recreate the Fedora released media to include the 
>> RPMFusion Free/Non-Free additional repositories (with a product.img) and 
>> be done with it (of course, rebrand the lot).
> 
> More pain, less gain. This sounds as if you're just rolling a spin with a 
> changed fedora-artworks package and a rpmfusion-release rpm added into the 
> mix.

Point taken, and you're right; it would just be a spin without 
fedora-logos and with a rpmfusion-release package (and a product.img). 
But it's an alternative to consider ;-)

> I'm a bit concerned that this will result in a lot of technically 
> illiterate users installung "our fedora" because "it just works!!!111!!" 
> and then come crying back to usthat it doesn't look like fedora, that we 
> broke something or whatever else they can come up with.
> In the end we either ignore this resulting in a lot of frustration vented 
> on digg or ./. Or alternatively, we spent lots of our limited time helping 
> these guys.
> 

Well, in the end, even if you do a show-case live spin, which people 
will be able to install from, unless you disable that feature, you are 
going to attract users that seek support for their running systems that 
are, at that point, not running Fedora.

> So I'd personally prefer to just offer an add-on disk and be done with it.
> 

Which I guess is the big other alternative (to distributing the 
packages, that is) ;-)

> But on the other hand... Talk is cheap. If you wanna run with it, hey, 
> knock yourself out. :-)
> 
>> Really, if a GUI is going to pop up on inserting some media with 
>> software, PackageKit should be the one taking it on.
> 
> Ohhh right, the .*Kit madness. Does PackageKit works nowadays?

If it doesn't, have you logged a bug? ;-)

  I installed
> F9 on my workstation some time ago and found the only way to get it to 
> work was to configure both PackageKit and NetworkManagerKit with "rpm -e 
> --with-prejudice=extreme". Then my problems went away. :-)
> I'm not to fond of this Kit stuff... But that's just me going off on a 
> rant... I'm sure these tools work just splendid for everyone else.
>  

This (handling the add-on CD) just seems right up their sleeve, that's all.

>>> Personally speaking:_WHY_ we'd need such a cd however is beyond me, I 
>>> haven't touched a CD or DVD in years. PXE does that to you....
>> It's a good thing everyone has PXE at home these days ;-)
> 
> Hey, don't knock it. The time setting up a PXE server at home (takes what? 
> 15min for the uninitiated?) is well spent...
> 

True, assuming you have at least two PCs. Kinda moot point wrt. the 
original topic in this thread anyway, don't you think?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip