Michael Stahnke schrieb: > On 2/23/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Stephen John Smoogen schrieb: >> My 2 cent: >> Agreed for Camp1 -- it should be left to people who are going to be paid >> for it. >> For the other stuff: I'm targeting something like a mix in the middle >> between Camp2 and Camp3 (with some bits of Camp1 maybe) for EPEL (maybe >> a bit more closer to Camp2 than Camp3). Always the latest stuff IMHO is >> what we have Fedora for; I also think that's its unrealistic to even try >> to always ship the latest apps: Just try now to build a certain apps >> from Extras for RHEL4 -- you will run into trouble now and then, as >> RHEL4 ships with gtk2-2.4, but there are quite a few apps these days >> that require gtk2-2.6. > Has the demand for one particular type of application been higher than > another? For example, most shops I see with RHEL/CentOS are in > runlevel 3, so QT/GTK applications are minimal. Is anyone seeing > things that are different? Well, I assume that besides those that run RHEL/CentOS on Servers in runlevel 3 there are a lot of people out there that run it on their workstation; Fedora afaics moves to fast for a lot of people that prefer to have a "stable" desktop -- they afaics prefer to only upgrade their machine all 18-24 months (or even more seldom) to a new release. > Also, will things like Tremulous be > allwoed in EPEL? /me looks up what tremulous -- ohh, a "First Person Shooter game based on the Quake 3 engine", that why I don't know about it. Well, I didn't build the games I maintain for EPEL yet, but I suppose some people expect them to find in EPEL. I think we should ship them, if the maintainer wants, but games IMHO have not a high priority. CU thl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
