I am trying to play pickup as quickly as possible while juggling my normal job. Is there a summary of all the packages that have been dropped to meet the 4 CDRom limit? I think xfce and cfengine are on that list.. but what else?
Stephen J. Smoogen (smooge@gmail.com) said:
I am trying to play pickup as quickly as possible while juggling my normal job. Is there a summary of all the packages that have been dropped to meet the 4 CDRom limit? I think xfce and cfengine are on that list.. but what else?
From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras_2fOrphanedPackages:
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23
abiword ash asp2php aumix balsa bzflag cdp comsat dietlibc diskcheck exim freeciv ggv gnuchess gnumeric gpdf grip gv kdetoys koffice lapack lesstif libesmtp libtool-libs13 libxfce4mcs libxfce4util libxfcegui4 Maelstrom mew-xemacs octave openssl096 openssl096b pan pccts Regina sylpheed THE tuxracer wl-xemacs xboard xemacs xemacs-sumo xfce4-iconbox xfce4-panel xfce4-systray xfce-mcs-manager xfce-mcs-plugins xfce-utils xfdesktop xffm xffm-icons xfprint xfwm4 xfwm4-themes xloadimage xosview xsnow ytalk
cfengine is not listed in this group simply because it wasn't in an actual FC release. But it's 'removed' as well.
Bill
Bill Nottingham (notting@redhat.com) said:
Stephen J. Smoogen (smooge@gmail.com) said:
I am trying to play pickup as quickly as possible while juggling my normal job. Is there a summary of all the packages that have been dropped to meet the 4 CDRom limit? I think xfce and cfengine are on that list.. but what else?
From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras_2fOrphanedPackages:
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23
abiword ash asp2php aumix balsa bzflag cdp comsat dietlibc diskcheck exim freeciv ggv gnuchess gnumeric gpdf grip gv kdetoys koffice lapack lesstif libesmtp libtool-libs13 libxfce4mcs libxfce4util libxfcegui4 Maelstrom mew-xemacs octave openssl096 openssl096b pan pccts Regina sylpheed THE tuxracer wl-xemacs xboard xemacs xemacs-sumo xfce4-iconbox xfce4-panel xfce4-systray xfce-mcs-manager xfce-mcs-plugins xfce-utils xfdesktop xffm xffm-icons xfprint xfwm4 xfwm4-themes xloadimage xosview xsnow ytalk
cfengine is not listed in this group simply because it wasn't in an actual FC release. But it's 'removed' as well.
Also:
dbskkd-cdb FreeWnn kinput2 miniChinput nabi skkinput system-switch-im xcin
(Non-IIMF input methods.)
Bill
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 23:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23 ... exim
Er, do you mean exim-doc, which was split into a separate package? Exim itself is fairly tiny and is a potential candidate for being the default MTA. There was no discussion of removing Exim entirely, and it was shipped in FC3.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:59:51AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 23:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23 ... exim
Er, do you mean exim-doc, which was split into a separate package? Exim itself is fairly tiny and is a potential candidate for being the default MTA. There was no discussion of removing Exim entirely, and it was shipped in FC3.
For exim I think we should continue to put it into FC-devel, but only exclude it from FC4 if the space requirements need this removal.
greetings,
Florian La Roche
Er, do you mean exim-doc, which was split into a separate package? Exim itself is fairly tiny and is a potential candidate for being the default MTA. There was no discussion of removing Exim entirely, and it was shipped in FC3.
For exim I think we should continue to put it into FC-devel, but only exclude it from FC4 if the space requirements need this removal.
greetings,
I'm thinking for the future - why don't we consider pulling this discussion off of fedora-devel and onto fedora-maintainers? Sound reasonable?
-sv
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 03:20:59AM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
Er, do you mean exim-doc, which was split into a separate package? Exim itself is fairly tiny and is a potential candidate for being the default MTA. There was no discussion of removing Exim entirely, and it was shipped in FC3.
For exim I think we should continue to put it into FC-devel, but only exclude it from FC4 if the space requirements need this removal.
greetings,
I'm thinking for the future - why don't we consider pulling this discussion off of fedora-devel and onto fedora-maintainers? Sound reasonable?
Yes, that will be the right spot.
greetings,
Florian La Roche
Le jeudi 24 février 2005 à 07:59 +0000, David Woodhouse a écrit :
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 23:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23 ... exim
Er, do you mean exim-doc, which was split into a separate package?
I am really again this idea ! Perhaps we could reduce the size of exim-doc. from exim-doc-4.43-1.FC3.1 : $ du -s /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/* /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/ 152 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/config.samples 1340 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/faq 3336 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/html 1320 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/pdf 2540 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/ps 1512 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/texinfo 10204 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/
We can remove faq/ (already in html/) pdf/ ps/ and texinfo/ . In this case, we have : $ du -s /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/ 3492 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/
Some examples : $ du -s gcc-3.4.2 postgresql-7.4.7 libxml2-devel-2.6.16 xorg-x11- doc-6.8.1.902 rpm-devel-4.3.2 qt-devel-3.3.3 8088 gcc-3.4.2 6956 postgresql-7.4.7 7832 libxml2-devel-2.6.16 10752 xorg-x11-doc-6.8.1.902 21852 rpm-devel-4.3.2 37136 qt-devel-3.3.3
Should we remove gcc, postgresql, libxml2, xorg-x11, rpm-devel, qt-devel doc ?
Too bad.
Féliciano Matias wrote:
Le jeudi 24 février 2005 à 07:59 +0000, David Woodhouse a écrit :
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 23:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23 ... exim
Er, do you mean exim-doc, which was split into a separate package?
I am really again this idea ! Perhaps we could reduce the size of exim-doc. from exim-doc-4.43-1.FC3.1 : $ du -s /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/* /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/ 152 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/config.samples 1340 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/faq 3336 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/html 1320 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/pdf 2540 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/ps 1512 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/texinfo 10204 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/
We can remove faq/ (already in html/) pdf/ ps/ and texinfo/ . In this case, we have : $ du -s /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/ 3492 /usr/share/doc/exim-doc-4.43/
Some examples : $ du -s gcc-3.4.2 postgresql-7.4.7 libxml2-devel-2.6.16 xorg-x11- doc-6.8.1.902 rpm-devel-4.3.2 qt-devel-3.3.3 8088 gcc-3.4.2 6956 postgresql-7.4.7 7832 libxml2-devel-2.6.16 10752 xorg-x11-doc-6.8.1.902 21852 rpm-devel-4.3.2 37136 qt-devel-3.3.3
Should we remove gcc, postgresql, libxml2, xorg-x11, rpm-devel, qt-devel doc ?
Too bad.
Well in current rawhide there isn't much of a gain left except for tetex-doc. It almost seems silly to be worry about dropping exim when the 3rd largest package in the system (openoffice.org-i18n and eclipse-platform being larger), could at least be cut down in size a bit, it was only 30meg in fc2, and i doubt someone wrote 200 new pages of docs for it. Its kinda a confusing layout but it looks like most documents in it are both in pdf and dvi, plus there is a bunch of html documents and make files.
52M tetex-doc-3.0-2.i386.rpm 6.1M xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-1.i386.rpm 4.7M postgresql-docs-8.0.1-2.i386.rpm 3.3M exim-doc-4.44-1.i386.rpm 2.8M openswan-doc-2.3.0-4.i386.rpm 2.5M python-docs-2.4-4.i386.rpm 2.2M kernel-doc-2.6.10-1.1149_FC4.noarch.rpm 1.5M docbook-style-xsl-1.68.1-1.noarch.rpm 1.2M ruby-docs-1.8.2-4.i386.rpm
-josh
Le mercredi 23 février 2005 à 23:19 -0500, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
Stephen J. Smoogen (smooge@gmail.com) said:
I am trying to play pickup as quickly as possible while juggling my normal job. Is there a summary of all the packages that have been dropped to meet the 4 CDRom limit? I think xfce and cfengine are on that list.. but what else?
From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras_2fOrphanedPackages:
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23
(...) exim
?!? Isn't sendmail "obsolete" and exim (or postfix) the future default ?
seth vidal skvidal@phy.duke.edu:
?!? Isn't sendmail "obsolete" and exim (or postfix) the future default ?
despite some rampant discussion on this list I don't remember that being decided anywhere.
I've been staying out of the whole what-should-be-dropped discussion. But let me add my voice to the "sendmail's got to go" contingent. I don't care much what replaces it, either of postfix or exim would be an improvement.
I am not very familiar with exim, but I like postfix very much. Yes, kill sendmail. However, please make postfix the default and if exim is good, please keep it around as a choice for those who like it. Postfix is the sane default I think.
Trever
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 00:08 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
seth vidal skvidal@phy.duke.edu:
?!? Isn't sendmail "obsolete" and exim (or postfix) the future default ?
despite some rampant discussion on this list I don't remember that being decided anywhere.
I've been staying out of the whole what-should-be-dropped discussion. But let me add my voice to the "sendmail's got to go" contingent. I don't care much what replaces it, either of postfix or exim would be an improvement. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
-- "I am not sure what this is, but an `F' would only dignify it." -- English Professor
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:10 -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
I am not very familiar with exim, but I like postfix very much. Yes, kill sendmail. However, please make postfix the default and if exim is good, please keep it around as a choice for those who like it. Postfix is the sane default I think.
So postfix being the 'sane' replacement is based only on it being what you prefer? Unfortunately single user preferences aren't what decisions are made on at a distro level.
Ok, how about, sendmail is harder to configure to be secure, historically has had more security bugs, and is over kill for most installations.
Postfix offers many of the same features, is historically more secure, etc.
I didn't go into this, but this is why I like it. It is also a fresher code base, which I tend to like because it often means more maintainability (but not always).
Sane does not mean I like it (there are a lot of sane things that I don't care for...), I am sorry I gave that impression.
Trever
P.S. All of these things may actually mean exim should be the default... but as I said, I don't know much about it.
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 11:30 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:10 -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
I am not very familiar with exim, but I like postfix very much. Yes, kill sendmail. However, please make postfix the default and if exim is good, please keep it around as a choice for those who like it. Postfix is the sane default I think.
So postfix being the 'sane' replacement is based only on it being what you prefer? Unfortunately single user preferences aren't what decisions are made on at a distro level.
-- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-- The Feynman problem solving Algorithm 1) Write down the problem 2) Think real hard 3) Write down the answer -- Murray Gell-mann in the NY Times
Le jeudi 24 février 2005 à 00:08 -0500, seth vidal a écrit :
?!? Isn't sendmail "obsolete" and exim (or postfix) the future default ?
despite some rampant discussion on this list I don't remember that being decided anywhere.
OK, but in this case why only exim and not exim *and* postfix. If exim is the default for FC5, i don't think it's good idea to remove it in FC4. Or "Fedora team" decide to use postfix as default MTA and keep sendmail for compatibility.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:19:24 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages:
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23
-snip-
sylpheed
-snip-
I've planned to take that one if nobody else is more interested than me and after taking another look at the tarball and bugzilla. There's also the possibility to maintain it with more than one primary package owner. But maybe I like Evolution these days or give Sylpheed-claws another try (which is in Extras already), so claiming sylheed package ownership doesn't have high priority for me.
When FC-3 split in Extras CVS happens, is it possible to transfer the "sylpheed" module from FC CVS, or do we simply import the last src.rpm from Rawhide?
Packages removed from Fedora Core 4 development tree on 2005-02-23
abiword ash asp2php aumix balsa bzflag cdp comsat dietlibc diskcheck exim freeciv ggv gnuchess gnumeric gpdf grip gv kdetoys koffice lapack lesstif libesmtp libtool-libs13 libxfce4mcs libxfce4util libxfcegui4 Maelstrom mew-xemacs octave openssl096 openssl096b pan pccts Regina sylpheed THE tuxracer wl-xemacs xboard xemacs xemacs-sumo xfce4-iconbox xfce4-panel xfce4-systray xfce-mcs-manager xfce-mcs-plugins xfce-utils xfdesktop xffm xffm-icons xfprint xfwm4 xfwm4-themes xloadimage xosview xsnow ytalk
cfengine is not listed in this group simply because it wasn't in an actual FC release. But it's 'removed' as well.
So with these removed from Core I assume they are going to be in Extras. Correct? In Extras will they continue to be maintained as before or will they need someone to step up and maintain them? The reason I ask is it would be a pity to see abiword and gnumeric disappear as I find them considerably faster than OOo and in the case of Abiword it supports a number of word files that don't work to well with OOo.I also use grip. While I'm happy for them to be in extras rather than core I would still like them to be around.
Pete
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Peter Robinson wrote:
So with these removed from Core I assume they are going to be in Extras. Correct? In Extras will they continue to be maintained as before or will they need someone to step up and maintain them? The reason I ask is it would be a pity to see abiword and gnumeric disappear as I find them considerably faster than OOo and in the case of Abiword it supports a number of word files that don't work to well with OOo.I also use grip. While I'm happy for them to be in extras rather than core I would still like them to be around.
The plan is to add these packages to Extras as demand requires. Volunteers are always wanted to help maintain packages. Are you interested? Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras_2fCvsAccess
Cheers, -- Elliot
hello, i am terying to make aan video player so can u tell me the necessary to develop the media player.
i will be gratefull. if u give me nay idea about that.
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 00:44, Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
Is there a summary of all the packages that have been dropped to meet the 4 CDRom limit?
Knowing that packages usually grow in size, will we have to go through a package killing spree for every upcoming release of Fedora to keep the distro size down to 4 CDs?
Leonard.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:40:29 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander > Knowing that packages usually grow in size, will we have to go through a
package killing spree for every upcoming release of Fedora to keep the distro size down to 4 CDs?
Yes.. eventually OO.org will grow to take up 4 cds. But by that point it will be a general purpose operating system in its own right, so we won't notice a difference in the end. All this nashing of teeth is just growing pains.
-jef"or maybe i mean emacs.. substitute whatever application sounds funniest"spaleta
Hi Jef,
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 21:46, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Yes.. eventually OO.org will grow to take up 4 cds. But by that point it will be a general purpose operating system in its own right, so we won't notice a difference in the end. All this nashing of teeth is just growing pains.
Seems more like a case of shrinking pains to me. Anyway, not really an answer to my question is it? With individual packages growing we will have lack of room on the 4 CDs for the next release as well. Long before OOo grows to 4 CDs all by itself.
Leonard.
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 22:08 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Hi Jef,
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 21:46, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Yes.. eventually OO.org will grow to take up 4 cds. But by that point it will be a general purpose operating system in its own right, so we won't notice a difference in the end. All this nashing of teeth is just growing pains.
Seems more like a case of shrinking pains to me. Anyway, not really an answer to my question is it? With individual packages growing we will have lack of room on the 4 CDs for the next release as well. Long before OOo grows to 4 CDs all by itself.
Packages always growing? Bah, every programmer knows that the most useful tool is the delete key. ;-) In all seriousness, a lot of the best software development manages to add features *and* shrink the codebase *and* make everything faster.
Eventually, yes, it will probably become impossible to fit a complete OS (and mainstream apps) on a couple CDs. By that time, though, one would hope that DVDs would be more common place as a software distribution mechanism. Not much longer than a decade ago it was rather far-fetched to think that you could distribute software without offering a floppy version. ;-)
Leonard.
-- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 00:44, Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
Is there a summary of all the packages that have been dropped to meet the 4 CDRom limit?
Knowing that packages usually grow in size, will we have to go through a package killing spree for every upcoming release of Fedora to keep the distro size down to 4 CDs?
Pretty much, yea. It's really easy to let the distro grow without bounds. We have to be disciplined enough to take on a little bit of pain now so that things don't become unmanageable later.
Cheers, -- Elliot
Hi Elliot,
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 22:11, Elliot Lee wrote:
Pretty much, yea. It's really easy to let the distro grow without bounds. We have to be disciplined enough to take on a little bit of pain now so that things don't become unmanageable later.
Do we already have a list of likely candidates?
Leonard.
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org