On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson <awill...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 17:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) said: >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Colin Walters <walt...@verbum.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 > criterion. :) > > 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. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
