reviving Fedora Legacy

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 02:29:55PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 01:18:01PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> 
>> I understand that there is a market for a Fedora-based distribution
>> which doesn't receive megabytes of updates each week, and which is
>> supported for longer than a year.
>
>What have been proposed so far doesn't solve the 'which doesn't receive
>megabytes of updates each week' part, only the 'supported for longer
>than a year' part.
>
>> What I _don't_ understand is why these requirements are not met by
>> CentOS. Isn't that _precisely_ the 'market' that RHEL and CentOS exist
>> to serve?
>
>Because it is not the same as you stress yourself. Centos is clearly not
>the same than 'Fedora-based distribution which is supported for longer 
>than a year'. It allows to use innovative technologies while not being
>forced to update each year.

That, to me, sounds like you want to update/backport $new_hotness of the
day to Fedora LTS.  And that, to me, sounds like pain.

As an example, CentoOS and RHEL5 don't support KVM.  Would you want the
ability to backport KVM (or features like it) to a Fedora LTS?  If so,
that way lies madness.

>The proposal is not to create a new distribution, but simply haev EOLed
>branches acl removed and leave th epossibility to build and push th
>eresults, with a limitation of the changes to grave bug fixes and
>security issues.

Except that conflicts with what you said above about "...use innovative
technologies while not being forced to update each year.".

josh