Hosting the live cd
fedora at leemhuis.info
Sun Oct 12 11:35:28 CEST 2008
On 12.10.2008 10:37, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> And exactly that "I" in "went ahead with a name I picked" IMHO is
>> totally unacceptable in a *community* project
> I can't force people to give me feedback. I did ask for suggestions
> before picking one.
You imho definitely should have asked for feedback again *after* picking
a name and *before* using it in public.
> I did post the kickstart file as well for people to
> give input on the content and got zero feedback.
That doesn't mean that nobody is interested. Especially as some people
are quite busy getting RPM Fusion running first.
> Since you seem to be in
> agreement for the general idea of letting people doing the work making
> the decisions, in this case, that would be me.
Then you spin is imho your spin and is no community or RPM Fusion
effort. But you, I and some other people afaics want your work to be a
RPM Fusion effort; so all I'm asking you (and that's why I'm investing
time in this discussion): Please be a bit more careful in the future and
give people a chance to influence things before you start putting them
in stone (which you imho did).
> I don't really see the
> name choices as a big deal. I got work done and there was many things
> fixed for the benefit of everybody.
Someone that "got work done [...] for the benefit of everybody" was
round about the argument in the early livna days afaik. If that someone
back then would have been a bit more careful then freshrpms and livna
could have been one right from the start (that how I got the story told
by people I trust).
>> Which of the two wins depends on the answers to question that were in
>> the mail you replied to. But you for some reasons avoided to answer
>> them. So here it is again:
>>>> One other important thing that was not discussed properly iirc: Do
>>>> we want one or two official spins? I'd say (at least in the long
>>>> term) two: one with only free packages and one that also includes
>>>> nonfree packages
> The reason why I picked a different name (I have mentioned this in the
> list before) is because longer names as RPMFusion - free repository spin
> is unlikely to catch on.
Not sure if I agree or not.
> You really need something short and unique.
Sounds like a definite fact, but that's just your option. Other might
disagree with it. Please give those a chance to express their option
next time. That all I'm asking you.
> I skipped the other question before because I didn't realize this question
> was directed at me and assumed you were asking for general opinion from
> others. I am personally uninterested in working on even more variants.
I'm quite sure other will.
> It takes a lot of time to compose and test packages especially when it
> has to be done against a moving target like rawhide especially since I
> am following the Fedora release schedule aggressively - beta, snapshots
> et all. More importantly, the only common things people want from the
> non-free repository would be
There are lots of other interesting packages in nonfree (and hopefully
even more in the future). If someone for example wants to do a "RPM
Fusion Games Spin", then he likely want to include games from the
BTW, I'm quite sure some people will actually say that
is a nonfree spin, as has one package from the nonfree repo:
rpmfusion-nonfree-release. That makes the nonfree packages available and
thus that spin is likely not a "free" spin in some peoples eyes (even if
it doesn't directly use any nonfree packages).
> kernel drivers which are hardware specific
> and cannot be bundled together or installed by default (no package
> selection possible in live cd) without running into legal as well as
> technical issues.
> Distributions which tried to do that in the past have backed off for
> good reasons. [...]
But the most well known linux distribution that gets a lot of public
attention gets away with it, so with similar tricks it might be possible
for us as well. But that would need closer evaluation and is a
complicated different topic we should ignore for now.
> As I mentioned here before, the right solution IMO would be to use
> something like Jockey (https://launchpad.net/jockey). It is a better
> because it is opt-in and generic, lets the user pick and avoids the
> issues mentioned above. If it works well, it should be part of the
> rpmfusion repository and installed by default in Omega potentially. Is
> anyone willing to look into that?
Steward afaics is looking into something similar; both of us afaics
pointed him to Jockey. But if it's wise to use Jockey or something else
afaics still needs closer evaluation.
Anyway, we should stop this discussion and do something productive. So
here are my suggestions:
(a) use "RPM Fusion" and prefix for all official spins (Just like Fedora
project uses the name Fedora for its spins) ; a "RPM Fusion Spin" (using
the kickstart file from omega as base) will be the first and official
spin that has both the free and nonfree repos enabled; this naming
scheme leaves room for other spins under the hood of RPM Fusion:
* "RPM Fusion Free" (only free; nonfree repo not even enabled);
* "RPM Fusion Games" (games from Fedora, RPM Fusion free/nonfree)
* "RPM Fusion foo" (whatever people want to do)
(b) just like "(a)", but only that we use "Omega" as the name for the
"official spin"; all others use "RPM Fusion" and prefix
(c) Just like "(a)", but use Omega as prefix everywhere
(d) your suggestion here
BTW, you at the start of this thread said:
> I would like to start hosting omega as part of rpmfusion
> infrastructure. A subdomain like omega.rpmfusion.org would be a good
I more and more think we should not so that. A spins.rpmfusion.org
should do the trick in the long term and could provide informations for
all active spins (and not only one).
And BTW, the directory layout for RPM Fusion closely replicates the one
from Fedora. Thus the proper place for the official RPM Fusion spin iso
imho would be something like that:
(to compare, the official Fedora spin can be found at:
More information about the rpmfusion-developers