Upcoming transition of FC3

[Jim Popovitch]

Matthew Nuzum wrote:
>> The problem, and we have all seen this, is that those in the 'know' are
>> not the ones who would sue FL.  All it will take is for FL to
>> automagically update one package that breaks a custom billing
>> application on a bored lawyer's computer....   I don't think the risk is
>> worth trying to be noble.
>>
>> Rather than auto-updating by default, why not just disable network
>> interfaces at EOL?
>>
>> -Jim P.
> 
> Very intriguing idea... I'll bet this could be developed into a ton of
> excellent sys-admin jokes. I'd like it if someone posted the suggestion to
> Slashdot so I can read all the replies it would generate.
> 
> An interesting way to make everyone happy in future generations would be to
> create the FCL repo before the FC version is even released. Then everyone
> could have the FCL repo in their yum config from the very beginning. Since
> there's nothing eventful going on with FCL's repo until FCx+2 is near, it
> would have no impact. However, once EOL comes up and FCL takes over, new
> updates will automatically start coming from the FCL repo. This drastically
> reduces the likelihood of an unpleasant surprise.

The chief issue I see is with the implementation as Redhat/Fedora and FL 
are two completely different organizations.  People trust Redhat, but 
those same people don't transfer that trust to FL probably due to the 
looseness of FL.

Basically you would have to convince RH's lawyers to allow you to take 
over responsibility for their EOL'ed systems.  Right now the RH lawyers 
don't care.  We could have the FL lawyers, opps there are no FL lawyers. 
  ;-)  What you need is for the RH lawyers to provide a way for you to 
add yum configs to something they are still responsible for.

This issue isn't a technical one, it is a legal one.

-Jim P.