[Univ-linux] Future unsupported Red Hat Linux systems

[Jef Spaleta]

Alan Coxv wrote:
> The big disconnect here I suspect is that we thought about Fedora Legacy
> as "old Fedora" stuff. That meant it didn't appear on the "immediate
> infrastucture radar". Obviously "legacy hat" or whatever has a clear 
> December kick off requirement

Well, if there was a clear understanding that Fedora, was meant to be a
clean break with what rhl was with no expectation for an upgrade path
from previous rhl releases to fedora core, then this sort of split in
legacy as well would be reasonable to assume. But if Fedora is meant to
be an evolutionary outgrowth of what RHL was and not a clean start, then
the legacy issues surrounding pre-fedora rhl releases, falls into the
same evolutionary framework i think to some extent.

And if that isn't enough of a reason to reconsider the timetable...think
of the rhl EOL coming up as an opportunity to work through some
community process issues before Fedora Core needs them. I think its hard
to get around the fact that the same people who will be interested in
making Fedora Legacy a workable solution for Fedora Core releases as
they expire, also want to see legacy support for rhl 7.3 and rhl 9, and
if they have to build up a completely separate process for the "legacy
hat" there will be far less interest in duplicating that community
building effort again from scratch under Fedora Legacy. Whatever gets
created for the upcoming December deadline, needs to be created with a
clear understanding that its part of of an evolutionary change, or its
created as part of a clean separation of church and state.

-jef"however it works out...the trademark issues surrounding post EOL
community support of rhl7.3/9 are not going to make anyone happy"spaleta
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20031006/d9049756/attachment.sig>