[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: long term support release

On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 03:23 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 09:16 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > However, I recall FESCO (or had it been FAB?) having decided on FC's
> > > short life-time and to support EPEL. Both decisions have been severe
> > > mistakes, IMO.
> > 
> > Supporting EPEL is a good idea, but not letting those who want to take
> > care of long term fedora is in my opinion a mistake. In most cases epel
> > spec files couuld be used for fedora long term, in my opinion there
> > would certainly be synergies between the 2 projects.
> > 
> Maybe I missed something. Who/What is stopping someone(s) from taking on
> Long term support for fedora if they choose to?
Lack of technical resources. 

RH/Fedora would have them, the costs would be very low, but Fedora's
leadership (Or should I say the @RH's in Fedora's leadership) refuse to
support this idea and block it off.

>  I don't recall anyone
> stopping anyone from doing it. I mean we stopped spinning cd-sized iso
> releases. Fedora Unity didn't care for that and they started doing their
> own. Not only did no one stop them no one CAN stop them from doing it.
Right. But ask yourself, isn't the fact Fedora Unity exists evidence of
RH/Fedora not having meet the market's demand and having slipped through
an opportunity? I say yes.

Also, wouldn't you consider the fact Ubuntu launches "Ubuntu LTS" to be
evidence enough that others see a market nice? 

I see it, too. Initially people chose Fedora as replacement for RHL.
Fedora didn't fill this gap and still hasn't managed to fill this gap.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]