Hi. Paul <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Again, the problem is not so much if it works and works happily under > RHEL/CentOS, but the QA/QC expected of a commercial product. Me, I am > happy to have the no-cost RHEL licence, a copy of the distro and some > RedHat freebies (come on, there has to be something!), but would be > looking at some form of indemnification from RH should something get > through which causes problems for the commercial client. I don't mind > carrying the can for stuff I do in FE, but would have qualms for the > RHEL. I second this. While it is nice to have FE packages available for RHEL (I use kbsingh's packages myself) it is absolutely clear to me (as an administrator) that we are talking about two different "classes" of software. RHEL is supported and comes with guaranteed stability (as far as such things go with software). The rebuilt FE packages on the other hand have neither support nor the guaranteed stability. If it breaks, I get to keep all the pieces. This is not a complaint in any way, it is just how things are. And since I know all this (and decide to use the packages anyway) it is ultimately my problem if a FE package goes awry on one of my systems. That's the deal. I do not think that the fedora project in it's current state is able to maintain software over the same period as a RHEL release. Just think about where you were, what you were doing and what your plans were seven years ago. -- "Music is the only language in which you cannot say a mean or sarcastic thing." -- John Erskine -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
