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

Re: What do we want to archive with Fedora?



Bill Nottingham schrieb:
> Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora leemhuis info) said: 
>> But it's something some people want/think they need(²). Heck, those 
>> people are probably even willing to put work into it to get it into 
>> Fedora(³) -- so do we really want to forbid it? I might be wrong, but I 
>> don't think that's the way to get the community involved properly.
> Here's what I want to see  - I don't want to hear 'people are probably
> even willing' - I want to see 'people are doing it'. If a RT kernel is
> what they want, start a RT kernel repo for Fedora on their webspace, and
> work to keep it up to date. If a module for their usbfrobozz is what
> they need, step up, put it in Extras, and start dealing with the hassles
> of keeping it up to date across updates and development.

And I want to do it the scope of the Fedora-project to get the people
involved that way into the project. Currently we scare them often away
with out behavior.

Maybe some kind of experimental area would he a good idea. The Respins
(and Live-CD-Betas) could live there, too.

> I'll admit - the way Fedora is developed right now, we don't have
> resources to throw towards projects we're not *actively* interested
> in for the next release; 

Did I mention already that an we could need a experimental area?

> it's why on the proposed feature list that
> I need *names* for everything.

Sure; btw, thx for it, I like it!

> [...]


> (*) I'm not against having kmod packages in Extras, but I think we
> need to warn prospective users about what they're getting into.

I more and more tend to think we should move the kmods and the kernels
into some seperate add-on-repo.

CU
thl


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