On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 03:23 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 09:16 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > However, I recall FESCO (or had it been FAB?) having decided on FC's
> > short life-time and to support EPEL. Both decisions have been severe
> > mistakes, IMO.
>
> Supporting EPEL is a good idea, but not letting those who want to take
> care of long term fedora is in my opinion a mistake. In most cases epel
> spec files couuld be used for fedora long term, in my opinion there
> would certainly be synergies between the 2 projects.
>
Maybe I missed something. Who/What is stopping someone(s) from taking on
Long term support for fedora if they choose to?
Lack of technical resources.
RH/Fedora would have them, the costs would be very low, but Fedora's
leadership (Or should I say the @RH's in Fedora's leadership) refuse to
support this idea and block it off.
I don't recall anyone
stopping anyone from doing it. I mean we stopped spinning cd-sized iso
releases. Fedora Unity didn't care for that and they started doing their
own. Not only did no one stop them no one CAN stop them from doing it.
Right. But
ask yourself, isn't the fact Fedora Unity exists evidence of
RH/Fedora not having meet the market's demand and having slipped through
an opportunity? I say yes.
Also, wouldn't you consider the fact Ubuntu launches "Ubuntu LTS" to be
evidence enough that others see a market nice?
I see it, too. Initially people chose Fedora as replacement for RHL.
Fedora didn't fill this gap and still hasn't managed to fill this gap.
Ralf