On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 03:23 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 09:16 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > However, I recall FESCO (or had it been FAB?) having decided on FC's > > > short life-time and to support EPEL. Both decisions have been severe > > > mistakes, IMO. > > > > Supporting EPEL is a good idea, but not letting those who want to take > > care of long term fedora is in my opinion a mistake. In most cases epel > > spec files couuld be used for fedora long term, in my opinion there > > would certainly be synergies between the 2 projects. > > > > Maybe I missed something. Who/What is stopping someone(s) from taking on > Long term support for fedora if they choose to? Lack of technical resources. RH/Fedora would have them, the costs would be very low, but Fedora's leadership (Or should I say the @RH's in Fedora's leadership) refuse to support this idea and block it off. > I don't recall anyone > stopping anyone from doing it. I mean we stopped spinning cd-sized iso > releases. Fedora Unity didn't care for that and they started doing their > own. Not only did no one stop them no one CAN stop them from doing it. Right. But ask yourself, isn't the fact Fedora Unity exists evidence of RH/Fedora not having meet the market's demand and having slipped through an opportunity? I say yes. Also, wouldn't you consider the fact Ubuntu launches "Ubuntu LTS" to be evidence enough that others see a market nice? I see it, too. Initially people chose Fedora as replacement for RHL. Fedora didn't fill this gap and still hasn't managed to fill this gap. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
