On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:57:43AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > At the same time, I don't want to stamp the Fedora name on something that has > 6 half working init system choices, but none that work fully. It's the same That's not what I am saying here. I am personnally rather retrograde and like to keep old stuff that work. I am all for a rock solid, well tested init system used as a default. > Now, I'm all for seeing development happen and initiatives. You can create a > secondary repo around trying out a new init system. I just don't want to see > them clutter up the main repos that every user gets access to. That, however seems very wrong to me and, in my opinion, very different from the spirit of former fedora extras. Having exotic, in development, niche software in fedora is very important to foster rapid development and innovation. The developpers should be cautious as to avoid letting softwares that are too broken pass from the devel repo to the release, but I think that we shouldn't fear from shipping broken software if there is an interest among users, they are not the defaults, and they are represented as being in development. An example along those lines is gnash, which is horribly broken still worth shipping in fedora. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
