Thomas M Steenholdt <tmus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Horst H. von Brand wrote: > > Thomas M Steenholdt <tmus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] [...] > > If it is /that/ important to somebody, they'll be willing to shell > > out for a long-term maintained distribution like RHEL (or band together > > and do the work). If not, they aren't really interested, more than an > > "it would be real nice if I did not have to upgrade Fedora each year or > > so" > I'm aware of the work involved in maintaining packages, backporting > fixes etc. And I agree completely that in the current setup, the fixes > will probably not be tested properly. Also, it does not seem like > something like this is desired for Fedora (at this point at least), > and that's an acceptable answer to my inquiry too. OK. > I only suggested that we thought about it, which a lot of people > did. There are several reasons why we should NOT do it, so there's not > much sense in leaving the "case" open. I believe it makes no sense to "think it through". Just leave the door open for people genuinely interested in managing some kind of Fedora LTS. Yes, that probably means being available to help out and check that the result is really worthwhile. A first step will be reevaluate the criteria when a release is EOLed, but even that can't really be done until Fedora 8 is mainstream and Fedora 6 is scheduled to be closed down. And even then, Fedora 6 will live on (sort of) in the form of CentOS 5... > Perhaps at a later point, it'll make sense to reevaluate. Now's just > not the time. Yep. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
