On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:22:18AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > I think setting up mandates and formal relationships between the > > various groups is important. Given that currently most FPC members > > are not really into RHEL, and that in the past whenever a RHEL > > rule was being discussed it was (IMHO wrongly) most often simply > > dumped, because "we are Fedora, not RHEL" the FPC needs to know > > its current responsibilities. > > > Fedora is more than the operating system. > > Fedora = RedHat = Ford > Fedora (OS) = RHEL = Mustang > > We aren't the OS, we produce the OS. You mean in relation to the quote I gave above: "we are Fedora, not RHEL"? The longer version is "We are creating guidelines for packaging within Fedora Core and Fedora Extras and base them on the demand of these users and packagers. We are not taking into account special requirements that are outside this scope, e.g. when they are RHEL specific, because we don't write guidelines for RHEL". That statement most probably doesn't hold true anymore, but someone needs to pass the responsibilities and mandate down to the FPC. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpV0EURWJXX5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
