Bill Nottingham schrieb: > Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >> But it's something some people want/think they need(²). Heck, those >> people are probably even willing to put work into it to get it into >> Fedora(³) -- so do we really want to forbid it? I might be wrong, but I >> don't think that's the way to get the community involved properly. > Here's what I want to see - I don't want to hear 'people are probably > even willing' - I want to see 'people are doing it'. If a RT kernel is > what they want, start a RT kernel repo for Fedora on their webspace, and > work to keep it up to date. If a module for their usbfrobozz is what > they need, step up, put it in Extras, and start dealing with the hassles > of keeping it up to date across updates and development. And I want to do it the scope of the Fedora-project to get the people involved that way into the project. Currently we scare them often away with out behavior. Maybe some kind of experimental area would he a good idea. The Respins (and Live-CD-Betas) could live there, too. > I'll admit - the way Fedora is developed right now, we don't have > resources to throw towards projects we're not *actively* interested > in for the next release; Did I mention already that an we could need a experimental area? > it's why on the proposed feature list that > I need *names* for everything. Sure; btw, thx for it, I like it! > [...] > (*) I'm not against having kmod packages in Extras, but I think we > need to warn prospective users about what they're getting into. I more and more tend to think we should move the kmods and the kernels into some seperate add-on-repo. CU thl _______________________________________________ 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
