Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 17:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> Colin Walters (email@example.com) said:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Colin Walters <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately we didn't notice this dependency until pretty late in
>>>>> F14...I'm not sure what can be done reasonably at this point, since
>>>>> all of these packages are critical path.
>>>> Though I will say that if this was determined to be a blocker, here's
>>>> a really safe minimal fix:
>>> AFAIK, there's nothing on the release criteria which make this a blocker.
>>> You can submit an update whenever for it, of course.
>> It's worth pointing out that we're not religious about the criteria: we
>> want to have criteria to cover each blocker issue, but that doesn't mean
>> that no issue can ever be a blocker unless it meets the existing
>> criteria. When we come across an issue that is widely agreed ought to be
>> a blocker, but doesn't meet the existing criteria, we write a new
>> Having said that, I don't think this seems serious enough to be a
>> blocker, though obviously we'd like the minimal install to be as minimal
>> as possible. Does it cause major problems for any spins? I doubt it, I
>> expect most of them will have cairo for one reason or another anyway.
> I wouldn't expect it to affect the usual spins on s.fp.o, but the
> image for EC2 might be as I would expect that to be aimed at Just
> Enough OS but then I'm not sure how stripped down they've tried to
> make it.
While we (the Cloud SIG) are shooting for a very minimal EC2 image, last
I heard we still planned to ship it with SELinux. But if that isn't the
case then I'm pretty sure this will impact the size of the images we
need to upload.
devel mailing list