On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 14:33 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 14:29 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 01:18:01PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > > > I understand that there is a market for a Fedora-based distribution > > > which doesn't receive megabytes of updates each week, and which is > > > supported for longer than a year. > > > > What have been proposed so far doesn't solve the 'which doesn't receive > > megabytes of updates each week' part, only the 'supported for longer > > than a year' part. > > > > > What I _don't_ understand is why these requirements are not met by > > > CentOS. Isn't that _precisely_ the 'market' that RHEL and CentOS exist > > > to serve? > > > > Because it is not the same as you stress yourself. Centos is clearly not > > the same than 'Fedora-based distribution which is supported for longer > > than a year'. It allows to use innovative technologies while not being > > forced to update each year. > > This is the part I have difficulty understanding. You want to use new > and innovative technologies, but you don't want to update your nice > stable system? It's not necessarily a matter of will on the user's side. It often is a matter of situations where you can't upgrade because your personal restrictions aren't synch'ed with Fedora's schedule. > > The proposal is not to create a new distribution, but simply have > > EOLed branches acl removed and leave the possibility to build and push > > the results, with a limitation of the changes to grave bug fixes and > > security issues. > > So no new innovation then? Yes, just bug fixes for those bugs contributors find time to look into. If things blow up, they blow up, still better than users using an entirely unmaintained distro. > And you'd want to do this for _every_ > six-monthly release of Fedora? Surely that's a whole boatload of effort > you don't need? Why not just do it for every other release? Or, perhaps > more usefully, every third release -- a new one about every 18 months? This would be an alternative. In this case, I'd use those Fedora releases RHEL releases are being derived from, because this would allow to harvest RHEL packages. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
