On 5/17/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Yeah, I want to be paid to do RHEL Extras, but don't care so much to be paid for Centos, Whitebox, or Tao Extras :). It all goes for being the corporate devil. And I say this in partial jest. Where I work.. I do lots of 'extras' porting from Fedora to RHEL as RHEL is our standard and Fedora is where the packages are. Turning those into packages back to RHEL is a pain because we pay for 'services' and expect that it would either be discounted from our costs. However, I do not seem to have this problem with 'Scientific Linux' due to costs involved ($0) -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
