We are evaluating building packages from Fedora Extras for RHEL

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 9/10/06, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 09:17 +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
> > Hi,
> > On 9/10/06, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 13:17 +0100, Paul wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > >  = The name question =
> > > > >
> > > > > We don't have a proper name for this effort yet. The "codename" until
> > > > > now was Enterprise Extras (EE) (it is used in this document in several
> > > > > places due to the lack of a better one), but we are currently evaluating
> > > > > other names. There were several suggestions:
> > > > >
> > > > >  * Fedora Extras (e.g. no special name)
> > > >
> > > > Problem with having Fedora in any of the proposals is that despite
> > > >- Fedora being a recognised "brand", the Extras is known to be a community
> > > > contributed area with none of the QC that goes into the paid for product
> > > > - for example, say any of the mono packages in FE goes wrong, the report
> > > > usually ends up on my intray. I'm just some bloke, sitting behind his
> > > > Linux boxes in his house extension, but with a full time job and full
> > > > time family to contend with. I doubt any company worth their salt would
> > > > want to use (say) Monodevelop without someone from RH being able to
> > > > support the product - I know my former boss wouldn't even entertain such
> > > > an idea.
> > > >
> > > > Now we all know that the support from anyone involved with FE and FC is
> > > > the best there is anywhere, but the linking of a commercial product with
> > > > something just added on may not entice many folks.
> > > >
> > > You have a different vision for Enterprise Extras than we have been
> > > discussing so far.  What we have been discussing really is Fedora Extras
> > > rebuilt for RHEL/CentOS/etc.  We aren't making additional guarantees to
> > > the consumer of the packages about the suitability of the packages for
> > > running on their servers (except that we will be supporting the packages
> > > for the increased lifetime of the CentOS/RHEL distro.)
> >
> >   So is there any preliminary information about which RHEL version is
> > decided fo rebuilding all FE packages for RHEL? I mean there are
> > currently RHEL 3,4,5 with various updates that mean totally if i am
> > correct 13 version in all present of RHEL.
>
> I don't believe this has been discussed yet.  I would vote for starting
> the project with the latest RHEL at the time.  That way we can start off
> slow with a single EE branch to try out.
>
> >   And how can i solve then dependencies problem if i decide to rebuilt
> > my FE package for RHEL3? RHEL is known as stable product because it
> > always contains old but stable packages from upstream releases. So how
> > can we solve dependencies problems like if some packages need latest
> > or newer version of dbus or hal for any FE packages?
>
> I'd think we'd branch from the FC branch that the relevant RHEL was
> based on.  We'd branch FC3 for RHEL4, for instance.  (This hasn't been
> discussed either.)

Actually.. I would use Centos versus FC3. THere was some compiler
changes that occurred inside of RH build tools that broke things for a
while within Centos and FC3 builds. The fixes were never made to FC3
(it was dead) but Centos got them later (due to active developer
community).



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"