On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:23:46AM -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? I don't recall anyone Unless I am wrong new builds aren't allowed for EOL releases. And I also guess that at some point mirrors are shut down. Not doing those 2 things would really allow for a fedora LTS. Now there is also the bohdi pushes and the signing. For the signing this could be done like other releases, that is fedora lts packages signed at the same time that other packages. and for bodhi somebody interested in fedora LTS would have to do the push, but it shouldn't be that hard to find such volunteer if the project is enabled. As a side note, with bodhi, the fedora process looks very like former legacy project. Something that would help even more would be to have RHEL branches available in the cvs like fedora and EPEL branches (maybe only read-only). But I guess there are many reasons, some technical, but most linked with redhat management of RHEL that would render that possibility quite unlikely (I am not criticizing, only stating). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
