On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 11:22 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 09:56 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > What we do not have are branches for RHEL and buildsystem infrastructure > > to generate these packages for RHEL. We don't know if the Fedora > > community will see value in managing RHEL branches as well as Fedora > > branches, given that they may not be using RHEL. It will certainly be > > more difficult for independent packagers to test RHEL builds locally, > > since we are not distributing the binaries for RHEL. > > Not to mention that RHEL packages have such things as stability, > backported security fixes, etc.. things that Extras packages and > maintainers don't really worry about now. Not to mention a 7 year > lifespan. I really doubt you're going to find an Extras maintainer who > would like to volunteer to maintain a piece of software for 7 years. Yep. I agree. I think "RHEL Extras" will have to be something that Red Hat, the corporate devil, will need to be responsible for and driving. That's not to say that we wouldn't permit community members to play in that sandbox, just that it falls well outside the Fedora arena. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
