reviving Fedora Legacy

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:23:49PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 10:14 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:12:40PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> >Answer: RHEL5 is not a replacement for a lifetime extended current
>> >Fedora.
>> 
>> Extended for how long?  Fedora releases are supported for roughly
>> 13 months (1 month after N+2 is released).  Actually longer if you
>> take into account the slips that inevitably hit during each release
>> cycle.
>> 
>> So, what _exactly_ are you asking for?
>Reread this thread, I am really getting tired of reiterating everything
>over and over again.

I've read the thread.  Twice.

>In a nutshell:
>* Lift acls from all discontinued Fedoras
>* Keep the buildinfrastructure alive.
>* Allow fedora maintainers to fix bugs in discontinued Fedoras.

This has impacts on everyone though, not just the people that
want to keep an old branch active.  You have to worry about:

1) Upgrade paths
2) buildsystem inheritence
3) Storage (CVS, mirrors, koji, etc)
4) Bug reports (because they certainly will get reported to the
   overall package maintainers, not just the "LTS" maintainers)
5a) Depletion of test and development resources to current releases
 or
5b) Lack of participation

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just needs a lot of thought.
There is a reason the Fedora Legacy project died.

>Alternative: Officially extend Fedora life-times.

This is not an alternative to the above.  This is where my
confusion comes in.  You say "extend Fedora life-times", but
you don't say to what.  Just keep this one out because it's
not really a viable solution.

>Alternative: Discontinue EPEL and replace it a full RHEL/CentOS
>derivative as part of Fedora.

I think if you remove the RHEL part of this, it makes some sense.
I doubt Red Hat is going to sign up for support of all the EPEL
packages, so they will never be part of RHEL proper.

josh