long term support release

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Jan 25, 2008 4:56 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> How about a slight variation on the fedora LTS plan that might vastly
> reduce the needed work and let people keep running without the dangers
> of going without security fixes?  What if the versions supported were
> the ones used as the base of the RHEL cuts, and the subsequent updates
> were recompiled from the CentOS source RPM's?

Anything involving how RHEL is put together is complete and utterly
out of the control of Fedora governance.  Even as a fedora board
member I have zero impact on how RHEL is put together and positioned,
so even at the board level I cannot plan to know which Fedora is
actually the base for RHEL, nor can I drive any decision making there.

Though I will say, that if I had the opportunity to be at the next
Fudcon which is coordinated with the next Red Hat Summit and would be
making it a point to talk to existing RHEL customers wandering around
and asking them exactly how they feel about where and how they'd like
to see RHEL and Fedora better aligned.  Because at the end of the day,
RHEL customers have to champion RHEL-Fedora interactions.  But
unfortunately it looks live I've got a conflict of commitments that
week, another conference for my dayjob that I probably will be
attending.

And I am very very wary about relying on re-consuming CentOS materials
just to make it easier for ourselves to their detriment.  From the
outside looking in, CentOS appears to have reach critical mass, and
has momentum.  I really don't want to disrupt that.  I'd like to build
more bridges with them, but not for the sake of pillaging them.  In
fact I'd welcome any offline ideas from prominent CentOS members
concerning how Fedora can better work with them.



> In some cases you might need to re-enable some features removed in RHEL
> (as CentosPlus does with the kernel) but the changes should all be
> pretty obvious to someone with both source packages.  And it would be
> nice if additional feature-enabled packages made it into the Centosplus
> repo in the cases where a fedora packager wanted to maintain them.

Anything like this, would really only make sense if we started sharing
build infrastructure. I don't think our relationship with CentOS is
strong enough for that to be a possibility.

-jef