On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:38:35AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 17:29 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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. > > I don't see why the FPC can't do "EPEL" specific guidelines where > relevant. Neither do I, but we need the authority and commitment. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpCxWn0xQ7do.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
