reviving Fedora Legacy

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 18:28 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:17:05AM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> > > 
> > > It didn't work with the limited number of packages in 1, 2 and 3 - why (or
> > > how) should it work now with the much larger number of packages available
> > > for F9/10/11? The workload for maintaining legacy systems has increased 
> > > manyfold. Sure, the number of people involved also has increased, but ...
> > 
> > There are many other differences. We can use the rules of fedora (and
> > could use the infrastructure). And after the merging there are more
> > involvment of the community in maintaining packages. I was interested in
> > legacy at some point, but everything was so different than in fedora
> > extras that it deterred me.
> 
> There also doesn't need to be a requirement that every single package 
> in the Everything repo be maintained for a longer time.  We could 
> start with some of the spins, like Fedora spin, which contains most of 
> the "core" packages.  Interested contributors would need to commit to 
> support either their own packages for a longer term, or other packages 
> where the current Fedora maintainer doesn't want to do long term 
> maintenance.  This would be simlar to how EPEL works, but for Fedora 
> releases.

Similar proposals have come up several times before (I once proposed
something like this), but so far, they all had been shoot down so far.

Openly said, my impression that certain parties in Fedora fear a Fedora
LTS rsp. life-time-extended Fedora to compete with RH products.

Ralf