[fab] discussion topics for red hat ceo

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 5/17/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 11:22 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 09:56 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > > What we do not have are branches for RHEL and buildsystem infrastructure
> > > to generate these packages for RHEL. We don't know if the Fedora
> > > community will see value in managing RHEL branches as well as Fedora
> > > branches, given that they may not be using RHEL. It will certainly be
> > > more difficult for independent packagers to test RHEL builds locally,
> > > since we are not distributing the binaries for RHEL.
> >
> > Not to mention that RHEL packages have such things as stability,
> > backported security fixes, etc..  things that Extras packages and
> > maintainers don't really worry about now.  Not to mention a 7 year
> > lifespan.  I really doubt you're going to find an Extras maintainer who
> > would like to volunteer to maintain a piece of software for 7 years.
>
> Yep. I agree. I think "RHEL Extras" will have to be something that Red
> Hat, the corporate devil, will need to be responsible for and driving.
> That's not to say that we wouldn't permit community members to play in
> that sandbox, just that it falls well outside the Fedora arena.
>

Yeah, I want to be paid to do RHEL Extras, but don't care so much to
be paid for  Centos, Whitebox, or Tao Extras :). It all goes for being
the corporate devil. And I say this in partial jest. Where I work.. I
do lots of 'extras' porting from Fedora to RHEL as RHEL is our
standard and Fedora is where the packages are. Turning those into
packages back to RHEL is  a pain because we pay for 'services' and
expect that it would either be discounted from our costs. However, I
do not seem to have this problem with 'Scientific Linux' due to costs
involved ($0)


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator