On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:01:42 -0200, Avi Alkalay <avibrazil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was expecting more discussion on this issues, since I believe they > are the strongest to slow down Linux ecosystem evolution and user > friendlyness. I just don't see the point of discussing this as something ready for inclusion in Fedora Core. I think discussion on this at the distribution level is premature if upstream projects do not yet have releases that use the configuration functionality elektra provides. What we are going to get if we have the discussion now, is a lot of opinion and very little hard evidence or common experience to draw on, what we get now is an argument. I see two paths to bring about useful discussion about inclusion in Core. 1) Elektra developers work closely upstream projects to make elektra essential or runtime optional side by side with traditional configuration. Once upstream projects push out releases that require elektra then fedora core will have a strong reason to include it as well as upstream rationale to support the technical benefits of inclusion. 2) put elektra packages and related tools IN fedora.us as a community packager and encourage Fedora users to install and configure there systems to use elektra. Building a track record of usage from fedora.us packages (aka Fedora Extras) provides a path towards long term integration and rationale through common experience to support inclusion. The way forward is to reduce the maintainership burden on Core package maintainers as elektra is intriduced to the userbase. You do this either by making upstream responsible for changes needed to have projects work with elektra, or you introduce elektra and related conversion tools as a Fedora Extras package set and get the userbase to start playing with it and provide a trackrecord of feedback to prove its worth the effort to integrate into Core later. Do what you can now to aim for inclusion in fc6. -jef
