On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:42:44AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > * It's important for several FESCo-Members that we use the Fedora > Extras infrastructure as much as possible Anything other than just another branch in CVS is going to be a pain to maintain, IMHO. > We don't have a proper name for this effort yet. The "codename" until > now was Enterprise Extras (EE) (it is used in this document in several > places due to the lack of a better one), but we are currently evaluating > other names. There were several suggestions: > > * Fedora Extras (e.g. no special name) That would be my vote. > As you all probably know, RHEL and CentOS are supported for round about > seven years normally and thus we need to make sure that the packages we > build for these Enterprise Distributions are supported for the same time > frame. "Supported" in this context means that security problems need to > be fixed in a timely manner after they were published. This normally > will be the maintainers job, but a security SIG -- either a special "EE > Security SIG" or the normal one we already have -- should watch the > maintainers and kick them if they missed something. The SIG also should > act as a fall back and step in to fix stuff if the maintainer doesn't -- > but they can't fix each and every security problem alone so it only > needs to be a fall back. This would be one of those places where it would be nice if we could have a different maintainer for every branch of a package. There are a few things I probably wouldn't want to spend much time on for RHEL (games and things like that), but someone out there might. > Closely related is the updates scheme EE should use -- do we use the FE > "rolling release" approach? My vote would be yes. > Or do we want to try a mix like "Updated packages in EE are allowed > (Rolling Release), but they normally should be build and published a > certain time frame in the repositories for FE first before they are > published for EE"? I wouldn't really want that to be a hard rule (since someone might want to push a security fix to every branch at the same time), but I think it would be a common-sense rule of thumb. I probably should note that *right now* I personally have no interest in RHEL/CentOS/etc. since I have no clients running it (mostly due to the lack of official Extras). That's going to change soon ($client needs to run an app that is only supported on RHEL), so this is coming up at a very convenient time for me. :-) Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve@xxxxxxxxx http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
