fesco, fpc and epel relationships
Tom 'spot' Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Mon Mar 19 16:38:35 UTC 2007
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 17:29 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:22:18AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > I think setting up mandates and formal relationships between the
> > > various groups is important. Given that currently most FPC members
> > > are not really into RHEL, and that in the past whenever a RHEL
> > > rule was being discussed it was (IMHO wrongly) most often simply
> > > dumped, because "we are Fedora, not RHEL" the FPC needs to know
> > > its current responsibilities.
> > >
> > Fedora is more than the operating system.
> >
> > Fedora = RedHat = Ford
> > Fedora (OS) = RHEL = Mustang
> >
> > We aren't the OS, we produce the OS.
>
> You mean in relation to the quote I gave above: "we are Fedora, not
> RHEL"?
>
> The longer version is "We are creating guidelines for packaging within
> Fedora Core and Fedora Extras and base them on the demand of these
> users and packagers. We are not taking into account special
> requirements that are outside this scope, e.g. when they are RHEL
> specific, because we don't write guidelines for RHEL".
>
> That statement most probably doesn't hold true anymore, but someone
> needs to pass the responsibilities and mandate down to the FPC.
I don't see why the FPC can't do "EPEL" specific guidelines where
relevant.
~spot
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list