On Sunday 09 July 2006 13:05, Michael Tiemann wrote: > Ugh indeed. But I take the other position--why is there no explanation > from the Red Hat side as to why we're not following upstream? I think > this is a case of "lead, follow, or get out of the way", and by taking > no proactive position on the subject, we're being asked to follow or get > out of the way. If we put a clear explanation why we're not following > upstream, at least people would know where we stand and why. We've been selectively backporting the parts from upstream that make sense. There are some changes that have gone into the upstream RPM releases that we're really not comfortable consuming, such as soft requires (suggests, recommends, enhances) stuff like that. I think there are many more examples of feature sets that we're really not comfortable with, I don't have a list in front of me. This really does sound like a fork situation. An abandonment may not be in our best favor right now, but a fork to further develop how we see fit and repair how we see fit w/out having to fight with unsavory upstream developers may be the best technical solution. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpb0YFAzd4Jk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
