shmuel siegel <fedora <at> shmuelhome.mine.nu> writes:
> I disagree. You are not being pragmatic. You are looking for
> infrastructure support from Fedora without indicating that there is a
> benefit to Fedora. Supply without demand is no more useful than demand
> without supply. Since Fedora views itself as "the cutting edge distro",
> you have an uphill PR fight. Give the Fedora project a reason to spend
> some of their limited resources on you. At least let them know your
> target audience and why they would be interested.
My point of view is: If there are people wanting to do the work, why not let
them? It costs almost nothing to just let people commit and build what they
want, the infrastructure is essentially already there. Right now, we're stuck
in a chicken&egg situation, where the people controlling the infrastructure
say "show us interested maintainers first" and potentially interested packagers
say "show us the infrastructure first".
My interest in this project doesn't go much farther than that - well, I could
build KDE security updates, which are few and far between, I might even help
with xine-lib security updates (which are more of a PITA), but I have only
limited interest in old stuff -, but I think there are people who would build
the important updates, it was overreaching bureaucracy which killed Fedora
Legacy (e.g. excessive QA requirements, paranoia such as not trusting
Bugzilla's authentication mechanisms, instead requiring GPG signing of Bugzilla
comments, which raised the barrier to entry), not lack of interested
developers.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
