[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Blend Fedora Objectives (was Re: Again: EOL Policy for Fedora Extras)



Am Samstag, den 18.02.2006, 23:10 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
> Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 15:45 -0500, Warren Togami a écrit :
> 
> > > 3. we should let FEL define its own policies. Today we don't know the
> > > number of people interested in FEL and their level of involvement. It's
> > > useless to dictate rules to a team which is not assembled yet. People
> > > who want to do it should first go to 1. and create some form of entity
> > > 
> > 
> > I think it is entirely broken to "hand over" the entire Extras and 
> > expect some other volunteer to take care of it.  This will create a 
> > guaranteed failure situation for a community group because the set of 
> > packages is potentially infinite and the natural problem that security 
> > is difficult to maintain with only volunteers (even Debian struggles). 
> > It is a *fantasy* for maintainers to expect they hand over 
> > responsibility to some theoretical entity and expect it to actually work.
> 
> The fantasy is to continue not acknowledging the problem. I'm very
> sceptical about the viability of a FEL. I write so openly. If we create
> one it will suck the first releases just like it did for FCL (and this
> is the optimistic scenario). [...]

And then we have the same problem that Fedora Legacy currently has taken
to Fedora Extras (Legacy) -- it works, but it has a bad (or "not the
best") reputation because it sucked in the beginning.

Do we want that? I would prefer a EOL call over a badly working Fedora
Extras Legacy.

CU
thl 
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]