long term support release

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:56:48 -0600
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:

> How about a slight variation on the fedora LTS plan that might vastly 
> reduce the needed work and let people keep running without the
> dangers of going without security fixes?  What if the versions
> supported were the ones used as the base of the RHEL cuts, and the
> subsequent updates were recompiled from the CentOS source RPM's?
> There's a certain amount of incest or irony there, depending on how
> you look at it, but isn't re-using work what free software is
> supposed to be all about?
> 
> In some cases you might need to re-enable some features removed in
> RHEL (as CentosPlus does with the kernel) but the changes should all
> be pretty obvious to someone with both source packages.  And it would
> be nice if additional feature-enabled packages made it into the
> Centosplus repo in the cases where a fedora packager wanted to
> maintain them.
> 
> I could see why RH might oppose this for business reasons - but if 
> that's the case they should just say so.

What's the point?  Just the warm/fuzzy of being able to say "It's
Fedora!" ?  With EPEL you can get just about all the functionality you
need, with a few minor exceptions.  I'm not sure I get the point of
rebuilding things again and pushing them out through a different update
system.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080125/48591c5b/attachment.sig>