[fab] discussion topics for red hat ceo

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 07:35 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 12:54 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
> > Christian.Iseli at licr.org wrote:
> 
> > > Any inclination on RHAS Extras ?
> > 
> > While I personally would want this, this is outside the scope of Fedora.
> 
> Kind of, sort of.
> 
> About six weeks ago, we started the discussion of Fedora Extras allowing
> for multiple maintainers for packages who could then do multiple
> distributions for binary packages.  With that basic idea in place, what
> I called "Enterprise Extras" becomes possible.  Repackaging maintainers
> (CentOS et al) could become contributors here, and get those packages in
> their flavor, just as Red Hat can make them appear for Enterprise Linux.

I think this is overcomplicating things. We already have package
maintainers for a LOT of packages, and we already allow multiple
maintainers to share responsibility for package upkeep.

What we do not have are branches for RHEL and buildsystem infrastructure
to generate these packages for RHEL. We don't know if the Fedora
community will see value in managing RHEL branches as well as Fedora
branches, given that they may not be using RHEL. It will certainly be
more difficult for independent packagers to test RHEL builds locally,
since we are not distributing the binaries for RHEL.

As much as I'd like to see this, this has a lot of landmines along the
path, and we need to be careful not to confuse the Fedora message by
mixing in RHEL bits.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!