On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 6:04 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 16:03, Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:55 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From what I have talked with in the past.. 3 years is their bare > > > minimum and 7 is their what we really want. It usually takes the > > > vendor about 3-6 months of work to make sure the OS works on their > > > hardware without major problems and then they want people to buy > > > support contracts for 3-5 years where the number of problems needed in > > > year 3-5 are none. [This means that they want to have Fedora N for 3-6 > > > months before their laptops ship with it. So you ship them a frozen > > > preload before you release to public. They also want any shipped to > > > 'last' for the warranty cycle because trying to deal with update > > > questions when N eol's in the middle costs them a lot.] > > > > If 7 years is what manufacturers really want, then it sounds like > > Well they also want a Ferrari and all support to be done upstream for > free. 7 is usually their counter to 13 months. You start going down > there to find that what they really settle for will be 3-4 years as > most people don't extend warranties that long. Well, even so, 3-4 years would be a pretty long time. My point about EPEL was that, Fedora currently does produce a long-term-support type product (admittedly for another distro). It's EPEL. Except we don't really push it. EPEL is an opt-in thing, which means lots of packages don't have EPEL branches-- possibly because the maintainers didn't want to commit to maintaining a package in a long-term-support type environment, or possibly because the maintainers never thought or bothered to create an EPEL branch, or possibly because there are too many dependencies that don't exist in EPEL and tracking down those maintainers isn't worth the time and effort. I know that I would package more things for EPEL if I could reuse Fedora specs with a minimum of fuss and I didn't have to spend time getting a bunch of dependent packages built. It is not clear to me that Fedora having two long-term-support type products would be a good idea, as I am not sure that we have the resources to maintain *one* at the moment. That makes me think we'd want to tie a hypothetical "Fedora LTS" directly to RHEL/CentOS/EPEL somehow, and find a way to reuse the work for both efforts. Ben Rosser _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
